User talk:Ahunt/Archive27

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Breakfast time here, but thank you! - Ahunt (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Leaders Pictures

Hey Ahunt, I wanted to know if I need to go to the Talk page to change a leader's picture or if I can simply be bold. I found more recent pictures for two of the leaders. I have a new picture for Trudeau that was taken during the G7. It's in the public domain. And I also found campaign pictures for Scheer that are in the public domain. They don't go against what we previously said in the Talk page (a leader looking at another one).

This is the Trudeau one : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:-G7Biarritz_(48622478973).jpg

Here are the Scheer ones : https://www.flickr.com/photos/andrewscheer/48859362463/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/andrewscheer/48859697821/

I'm not sure which one is better between the first and second to be honest. Which one do you think is better?

There's also this one, but it's not as good as the two others : https://www.flickr.com/photos/andrewscheer/48859595631/

I'm annoyed there isn't anything new for Blanchet, since his picture is 10 years old. Same thing for May, it's annoying that her picture is a bit old now. Bernier's is fine, since it isn't old.

Finally, I found this one for Singh: https://www.flickr.com/photos/usw-metallos/39604732844/in/photolist-WSzuF2-23Swwhs-2eWG4UT-SNSQs3-aHyvVk-QTeiFH-23kJBgs-NCx771-29EG8Mb-29EGacA-2heh3YA-2hb7F63/ It's not as recent as the others I have (it's around the same period as the picture from now, i.e. 2018), but it seems to be a better picture. What do you think? MikkelJSmith (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, I went and did it. We'll see how it goes. MikkelJSmith (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

LOL, I was going to suggest you ought to take it to the talk page first, as leaders' photos on election articles are always contentious. That would go doubly where you want to use "official" pictures for Scheer, but more "incidental" photos for the other. But let's see if anyone reverts. - Ahunt (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not touching Singh, since I know there's not going to be consensus on that one. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The main concern you may hear is that Scheer's photo has Canadian flags in the background. That is usually a no-no for us: "wrapping one candidate in the flag". - Ahunt (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll change it then MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on the new one? I may update it again if Scheer posts a good picture on Flickr (without the flag). He seems to upload one every day. They're all in the public domain so it's fine. MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It looks better. You might want to scale it so all the leaders appear the same size, though. - Ahunt (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Could you do it? I can't right now. MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I am actually not sure how you were doing that! - Ahunt (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

So, it seems I can't zoom out... Scheer decided to wear a vest with the CPC logo, so I can't zoom out since showing the logo would show implicit bias I think. I think Pierre Poilievre actually was fined for wearing a shirt like that in 2015 I believe. Elections Canada ruled that it showed bias if I remember correctly. I'll have to wait for them to post a better picture. Hopefully, it happens. Looking at it quickly it seems they have some good pictures but much like the old Trudeau picture from the White House, he isn't looking to the front and we decided that was a no-no. MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay thanks for your efforts! - Ahunt (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Diamond DA20

I've replied to you at Talk:Diamond DA20 but I'm not sure the ping worked. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I do watch that page. - Ahunt (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Could you take the image reversal to the talk page?

Hey, since you raised the issue about the flags earlier and you have seniority over me. I was wondering if you could raise the issue about the new Scheer picture in the talk page. Someone put it back to the one with the flags. MikkelJSmith (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

LOL, no one has seniority on Wikipedia. Feel free to raise it there. - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure this qualifies as news or not

Hello Ahunt, as you've probably realized I have a bit more free time right now, which is why I've been catching up on some edits I hadn't done. I was wondering something. There's a story that came out this week and unlike the other stuff that I plan to add I'm not sure if this is noteworthy. So, I wanted to know what you think. We had this information that came out from CPC insiders : https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/10/10/scheer-campaign-faces-leadership-speculation-as-election-day-nears.html https://apple.news/AcoCPYFY3Spah3gxl7IGfzA This one is paywalled but it's a development to the story : https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-despite-leadership-questions-scheer-says-conservatives-are-united/ This also references the development in the paywalled article https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/10/11/despite-leadership-questions-scheer-says-conservatives-are-united-behind-him/ And finally there is this as the final development to the story : https://www.macleans.ca/politics/for-the-tories-peter-mackay-is-more-than-just-a-face-in-the-crowd/ Since we've had all these articles + some journalists asking questions and writing Scheer's response on Twitter I'm leaning towards news but I'm not sure.

What are your thoughts? Does this qualify as news?

MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

While interesting, I don't think it belongs in the election article, as it is really about what may or may not happen after the election. It might belong in Conservative Party of Canada, though. - Ahunt (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. That's where my doubts came from too. MikkelJSmith (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge third anniversary

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada is approaching its third-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and have no unsourced claims.

You may use the above button to submit entries, or bookmark this link for convenience. For more information, please see WP:CAN10K. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have created hundreds of new Canada-related articles in that period, mostly about Canadian sailboat designs and manufacturers. I'm not into competitions, though, as entering them all would take time away from writing new articles, but thanks anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Wells endorsing the Grits

So, I'm trying to update the endorsement section right now and I'm a bit confused by this article. Is Wells endorsing the Liberals here : https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-noise-and-the-stakes/? From what I saw online that's the conclusion other readers went to. MikkelJSmith (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

That is just one journalist, and, having read the article, he is very clearly not supporting either party, presenting it as more of a devil's choice. - Ahunt (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my conclusion too. I wasn't sure if it qualified as an endorsement lol. A bad endorsement maybe? I'm not going to add it. That was a joke.MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

LOLZ, well it was worth reading. The main complaint seems to be "no one worth voting for" and in that he is just reflecting what the voters are saying, too. - Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, which is why we can't really add it as an endorsement. By the way, I wanted to ask, this may sound dumb, but is my work on the election page biased? I do my best to fact-check and show what the source is saying. But, when I remove stuff (like I did right now) I get doubts that I'm biased. MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I do check every edit on that page and your work looks pretty neutral to me. - Ahunt (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For your contributions to discussion in the talk page for the People's Party of Canada article. Thank you for upholding Wikipedia's values. CremationLily (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that. I try to do my part. - Ahunt (talk) 01:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Tony misrepresenting sources

Hey Ahunt,

So, I've not edited in a while on the 2019 Canadian election page, but I still look at the edits. And I've realized that there's this guy called Tony removing stuff for "neutrality" even though it's already neutral and misrepresenting sources "due to bias". Is there anything we can do for that? JonathanScotty (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah WP:BRD. - Ahunt (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

It's just that he keeps trying to redo the same edits even though multiple people have reverted them already. JonathanScotty (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ahunt: There is an investigation going on that JonathanScotty may have two accounts. An admin posted on his talk page. TonySavanto (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't messaged by an admin... JonathanScotty (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

You'll need to take it to the article talk page and/or let the relevant sockpuppet investigation proceed to sort this out. - Ahunt (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 Canadian federal election Aftermath section

Hey Ahunt, just wanted to know what do you think of an election aftermath section for the 2019 Canadian Election. It was done for previous ones. (I'd prefer if you wrote the answer on the Talk page over there if it's possible)? MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I think I didn't explain myself well on one part, so I clarified that (on the Talk page). I'll ignore the notices of congratulations like you said. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

How to speedy delete

Hey Ahunt, I was wondering how do you speedy delete? Someone has made a copy of a part (timeline) of the 2019 Canadian election article and based on consensus people want the page gone, since there's no reason for its existence and it has a load of dead references. MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:CSD. - Ahunt (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Copyright ignorance

Hi Ahunt - thanks for your WikiWings on my recent Marcel Jurca articles. As you know they are pretty much devoid of images. There are several on the Jurca website that I'd like to use, but I've never uploaded other people's images, and my brain turns to mush when I look at Wikipedia's stuff about copyright.

Here is the Jurca copyright page copied from http://www.marcel-jurca.com/index.php/en-us/copyright-en

"All the materials of the site Marcel-Jurca.com are the exclusive property of the Marcel Jurca Comittee (CMJ). They are protected by the law.

The CMJ authorize the use of those materials in a non profit goal with the following conditions :

• It must promote and enlighten the lifework of Marcel Jurca;
• Before using the materials, you must send an e-mail to [email protected] to announce the use you expect to make;
• A copyright © must inform that materials are the property of the Marcel Jurca Comittee and indicate the website address : www.marcel-jurca.com."

I've already sent the announcement email to them, though had no reply yet, but it doesn't state that I need to have a reply.

Could you please tell me which copyright option I should choose when uploading these images to Commons? Lestocq (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I don;t think you can upload those to Wikipedia or Commons as their conditions don't comply with our licencing requirements on either site. To use them they would have to release them under a free licence. - Ahunt (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

What a shame - many thanks for your advice. On a similar tack, regarding the MJ-54 Silas, there's a long-dead site on Wayback Machine, tegas.net at https://web.archive.org/web/20050206143342/http://www.tegas.net/ (worth visiting for the animated GIF alone) with a 2-view sketch of the aircraft. I would love to use that, and I can find no copyright notice on thae Tegas site. Wayback Machine (Archive.org) T&Cs https://archive.org/about/terms.php seem to be OK - do you think I can use that? If so, can I claim fair use? Lestocq (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Fair use can be claimed if there is no chance of getting a free image, if the aircraft no longer exist or are not available anywhere to photograph. - Ahunt (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah well, I'm hoping to get to La Ferté-Alais next year, so I may get to photograph it (or its remains) myself. Many thanks for your help. Lestocq (talk) 11:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

That is the ideal solution! - Ahunt (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting

	Correct my mistake award
	I am awarding this trophy to thank you for correcting my stupid mistake on the 2019 Canadian election page MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

No problem, collaboration works! - Ahunt (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It's weird that I'm working on the page more now that the election is over lol. Although, it's a lot less stressful now that the election is over. MikkelJSmith (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The pressure is off! - Ahunt (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited FeatherPad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wayland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Change of rating at Talk:Wind-powered vehicle

Hi Ahunt, an editor, with whom I have some unproductive history, recently downgraded the quality rating of Talk:Wind-powered vehicle from B to C, without a substantive explanation. Perhaps you could you could look in on that and see which rating is warranted. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Will do! - Ahunt (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it is "C" class at present. It has too many "citation needed" tags for "B", although I think everything else is there. - Ahunt (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

What to do if there's no proof that a picture is in the Creative Commons?

So, I was looking at this and the problem is that there's no proof that the picture is in the Creative Commons. The link gives nothing and it's not a person's work from the file description. Contrast this with Singh's new picture which is someone's own work. So, should I remove it from the articles it's in, since we have no proof we can use it? - MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Yup it is on commons under a free licence: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jo-ann_roberts.jpg - Ahunt (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems there was a misunderstanding, but nevermind someone did the investigation and found that the page was added even though it's copyrighted. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Microsoft Edge

Hi! Microsoft has recently launched a new logo for its Edge browser and an user has uploaded that recent logo i.e, File:Microsoft Edge logo.svg.

Can you please edit the svg image to make it bigger and update the summary section?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4062:186:356A:142E:6AE2:89DF:3DC0 (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The logo is now set to 150px. Which summary section? - Ahunt (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Should I put it on the election page so it goes faster?

Hey, Ahunt

As you probably saw I moved the policy section that was hidden on the 2019 Canadian election page to my sandbox to flesh it out. I realize now that it's going to take a while if I just do it by myself. So, I was wondering, should I post the table back on the page even if it's incomplete? That way multiple editors can work on it and filling it out can go faster.

- MikkelJSmith (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It always helps to have more editors working on articles! - Ahunt (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

So I'm an idiot...

I lost my previous account after updating the password through a password generator(like LastPass) and forgetting to save it. Also, I had forgotten to add an email to the previous one too.

It's annoying tbh, since I lose my past edits and contributions.

I was really an idiot. I'll try and see if I can salvage it tomorrow (there's a chance I can).

Just wanted to give you a heads up. - MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

- try checking with an admin, they may be able to merge the two accounts! - Ahunt (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Where do I go to do that? I honestly have no clue. - MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

You might try leaving a note at User talk:CambridgeBayWeather. He is a very helpful and knowledgeable admin. - Ahunt (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I had no luck. I really am an idiot. I just linked to my previous account on my userpage and talkpage. That's the only thing I can do, besides an other thing I haven't checked yet (will do so later). But, I don't really have high hopes. - MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I've now put the same notice on Wikimedia. - MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Make sure you record your password! - Ahunt (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It's been done. The only reason it happened last time is that I changed it on a PC that wasn't mine and forgot to send myself the new one. Also, since I had forgotten to add an email, which I honestly thought I did. I did that too this time. - MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Just noticed this:

Template:Aircraft manufactured in Canada. I'd hate to see the size of Template:Aircraft manufactured in the United States! - BilCat (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. I already set out to start a discussion on just that, as the template leaves many manufacturers and aircraft out so far: Template talk:Aircraft manufactured in Canada. Feel free to add your two cents worth. - Ahunt (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

In what way is this not notable - American Airlines Flight 191

In what way was this person being on this exact same aircraft and commenting to his colleague that it was making strange noises... Just a few Hours before it crashed killing several hundred people.... not notable?

Of course I would agree with you that it's not notable from the official viewpoint, or for the purposes of the FAA investigation regarding the actual crash which is why I didn't include it in the actual substance of the article but the "pop culture" references at the bottom.... Where it would become notable and worthy of mention if there are references to verify that it actually happened, which according to the page for Mr. Maertens, there are. I'm just saying if this person truly was on this exact plane, earlier in the day on the day it crashed.... Basically my point is if it's a true story then why not mention it. Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Forgot to sign Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The person wasn't on the flight when it crashed, was on it earlier. He is no expert on the aircraft so his assessment that it was making strange noises isn't notable. I am a pilot and have been a passenger on airliners where the passenger next to me is getting all excited because of the noises the aircraft is making. First it was the landing gear retracting then the gear doors closing, then the pressurization kicking in, then it was levelling off and reducing power and so on. Each time I had to reassure her the plane was not crashing. Non-experts offering opinions on things that they don't understand is just not notable. If you really think it needs to be included, then, as per WP:BRD make a case for it on the article talk page and see if you can gain a consensus there to include it. - Ahunt (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Well I can see your point with regular people thinking the plane is crashing.... I mean I've only flown a few dozen times but every time there is even marginal turbulence the entire plane falls silent and people start making their peace with God....but the point I'm making here is that while this person was not an expert in the airline industry he was a professional athlete and professional athletes fly far more often than average people and considering he was on this exact plane the day it crashed this pro athlete likely wouldn't have mentioned to his friend that something sounded wrong/strange/odd unless he felt something legitimately seemed wrong and being a pro athlete who likely flew several hundred times he would probably have a realistic idea if something was out of the ordinary..... Not in the sense of going to make a report as though he was a pilot or a airplane mechanic but again.... If this is a true story, which it seems to be, then I'm just saying it's a legitimate connection to this flight and is an interesting enough side story to be worthy of mentioning near the bottom of article Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

While I understand your point, I think that his opinion is just not credible enough to include in an encyclopedia article. If anything, it sounds like a case of hindsight bias. You could equally argue that all the other passengers on his flight (before the crash), also probably all non-experts, didn't hear anything they thought was wrong, at least enough to mention it to anyone, even after the crash. As I said, if you really think this needs to be included then make a case at Talk:American Airlines Flight 191 and see if anyone else agrees with you, see WP:CONSENSUS. - Ahunt (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Your point is definitely valid as well as it doesn't directly have anything to do with it, except for the sense of the human perspective where there are so many people from so many flights who were about to get on a plane that crashed, or they missed their flight for some reason or they were scheduled on the next flight of a plane etc etc etc.... For sure hindsight bias is a real thing and if he mentioned it immediately upon reaching the terminal that's one thing but if he only mentioned it a week later after learning the plane had crashed then that's the hindsight bias as you say... Then of course it is also possible that other people heard something strange but being average citizens they don't have their own encyclopedia page to add their pov whereas Maertens being a pro athlete, does.... But fair enough, when I have the time at some point I'll look into his actual source material a bit closer & then perhaps bring it up in the talk page Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, sounds like a good way to proceed. - Ahunt (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	I wanted to send you this barnstar for helping me when I was a newcomer to this site. I don't think I would have enjoyed it as much without you. MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: I'm still on the new account btw, I just changed the signature to remove the 2. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, glad that you think that I have been helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:QuestAircraftLogo.png

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

List of transponder codes reversion

I have re-reverted the page and added an additional reference from the Federal Aviation Administration website under the section "How Do I Fly IFR in the SFRA?" it states "NEVER USE 1200" so to me that would be an SOLID indication that anyone who squawks 1200 in the SFRA is in direct violation of the SFRA under the regulations of the FAA and Department of Homeland Security regulations. Can I ask that in the future you please enter into a discussion first on the Talk Page before making any reversions. Thank you. YborCityJohn (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The guidance on this is WP:BRD - you make a change, it gets reverted and then you take it to the talk page for discussion and consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

stratos 716x pic

Hi, I'm glad you find it useful. Note an editor wants it removed as it fails the fair use claim according to him (" the file does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding"). I disagree.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I disagree, too. Knowing what it looks like increases understanding. - Ahunt (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed hopefully. - Ahunt (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hobie 33, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acrylic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Viking Aircraft Inc. for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Viking Aircraft Inc. 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/Viking Aircraft Inc. until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Every time...

I think about unretiring, some overzealous wonk reminds me why. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, see directly above! - Ahunt (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

But this is why I still hang around. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Good work! - Ahunt (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

ReFill2

Hey, Ahunt I was checking the CPC leadership page (was going to add footnotes to Kenney and Wall saying they endorsed Ambrose), and I saw that you filled some bare references with ReFill2, what is that exactly? - MikkelJSmith (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It is a semi-automated tool that takes bare URL refs and finishes them: https://tools.wmflabs.org/refill/ - Ahunt (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Ahunt, thanks for the info. MikkelJSmith (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The source for Kenney is this news article btw : https://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/braid-kenney-says-ambrose-would-be-a-brilliant-conservative-leader MikkelJSmith (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2019 Chilean Air Force C-130 crash

On 16 December 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2019 Chilean Air Force C-130 crash, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Pitts Special

In that case, any aircraft capable of single pilot flight has a crew of one, including dedicated trainers, which is silly. However if insist in enforcing this rule, I won't object, I will just step away from the article, as it is clear that my presence is not wanted.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. No need to "step away". We wrote the template documentation many years ago for just this sort of case. Back then we had people listing every combination in the specs, like two pilots, pilot and passenger, student and instructor, pilot and examiner and so on. We decided back then on the wording which is reflected in the template documentation, that is it should show the minimum crew needed to fly the aircraft, not the maximum. - Ahunt (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I have unwatched the article in question and will not edit it in the future.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems like a bit of an over-reaction to a simple editing question, but your call. - Ahunt (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents

Hi Ahunt, Any ideas you have about making this policy would be most welcomed. - Samf4u (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I have always thought that standard was mature and tested enough to be policy, but I am not familiar with the hoops that one has to jump through to get it there. You might start with a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft though. I think you will find good support there for the concept. - Ahunt (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Adam! Will do. - Samf4u (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Adam, While searching I found Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents/Factors to which you were a major contributor. I'd like to take the draft to RfC and propose it becomes a project wide guideline or policy per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Proposals. I'm asking for your permission to do this and for any ideas you may have to help the process along. Thank you, - Samf4u (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

That is all freely licenced (as is all material on Wikipedia) so you don't need my okay to take that and run with it! I should note that it may require a run through which I will try to do soonest. - Ahunt (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Having read through Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents/Factors I think the biggest problem there is it is really, really vague, pretty much to the point of being not very helpful! WP:AIRCRASH is much shorter and more specific. - Ahunt (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree. But I like the fact that it is more about article notability as opposed to article content. I will work on it but the upcoming holidays will delay me as I'll be out of town. I find it difficult to edit on mobile devices. BTW Seasons greeting to you and yours! - Samf4u (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

No rush on it, better to get it right! I hope your holidays are good. - Ahunt (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Hello Ahunt: From high in the Canadian Arctic I hope you enjoy the holiday season, the Winter or Summer solstice, Quviahugvik, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah or even the Saturnalia, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Adapted from {{Season's Greetings}}

Thank you very much! I hope your holidays are peaceful! - Ahunt (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

	~ Happy Holidays ~
	~ have a peaceful holiday and new year ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, great to hear from you. I hope your Christmas is good! - Ahunt (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Merry Christmas, Ahunt! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 11:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you - hope you have a great holiday season! - Ahunt (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

{{Aircraft manufactured in Canada}}

Hi and I am here to remind you that the template {{Aircraft manufactured in Canada}} (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Aircraft_manufactured_in_Canada) will need a documentation and a description. You can make the documentation by placing <noinclude>{{Documentation}}</noinclude> and make the description using User:NicoV/TDE (TemplateDataEditor). -- ^Bank _{Bank Robbery started a robbery} ^(🚨) 13:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your note, but I didn't start that template. - Ahunt (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) seems a bit over the top and I notice it has been included in lots of aircraft that already have manufacturers nav boxes - perhaps needs to be discussed at project. MilborneOne (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah my inclination is more towards WP:TFD than writing documentation. There is the second part Template:Uncertified aircraft developed in Canada in the equation, as well. - Ahunt (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for the award! Much appreciated. Kind regards to you! :) Hill9868 (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Glad that was all helpful! - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Bill! Hope you are having a great holiday season there! - Ahunt (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Airspeed Aviation

Hi, as a seasoned private/civil aviation editor, you might like to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airspeed Aviation. I for one am a bit at a loss to know what is the more encyclopedic way ahead.

Meanwhile, may I wish you the Season's Greetings and all the best from here on in. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your note! Merry Christmas to you too. I will go and have a look and see if I can contribute something useful there. -

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはAhuntたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 03:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope you have a great year here on Wikipedia, too. - Ahunt (talk) 15:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello Ahunt: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 07:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas to you too. - Ahunt (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletion

Hey Ahunt,

I wanted to know does deletion holds priority? I'm asking since there were some changes on Media coverage of Bernie Sanders and since there was some lack of consensus on those changes I wanted to revert them. However, I've lurked in the conversations and some editors have stated that even though there is lack of consensus deletion holds priority (the changes I'm looking to revert deleted some content on the page). - MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Btw, I'm not trying to canvass you. Just asking for help on policy since you've helped me on that in the past. MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I have to admit I have never heard that one! The policy is WP:CONSENSUS, so if you think a change is going to be controversial or if a change is made and then reverted, take it to the talk page and start a discussion. I find it helps to explain the situation really clearly and then give your proposed solution really clearly too. Say "I propose doing X". If no one disagrees with it than you have your consensus to go ahead. If there is disagreement then you have to negotiate a solution. - Ahunt (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Ahunt, I see thanks for the info, essentially there's a lack of consensus on the changes that were made, so I reverted the edits (besides the undisputed changes like WP:MOS). MikkelJSmith (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a confused question. What this editor should have asked was whether the addition of new content that has no consensus for it should be removed until consensus emerges for the inclusion of said content (i.e. all the challenged content on the 1-month old Media coverage of Bernie Sanders page). Just asking "deletion holds priority" is misleading in this context, as it clearly does not apply to long-standing stable content (i.e. we don't remove stable long-standing content just because one editor challenges the content). Ahunt, what this user wants to do is to keep newly added, poorly sourced and misleading content that has been challenged by multiple editors in an article with the absurd argument that there has to be a consensus for the removal of the newly added content in order to remove it, and he somehow took your response here as permission to edit-war the challenged content back into the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

LOL, the great thing about what I wrote in response was that it is correct in both cases! Actually WP:CONSENSUS always applies in all cases, as does WP:EW. - Ahunt (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Ahunt, I will challenge the poorly source and misleading content claim, since that wasn't what I was doing. I merely reverted the edits due to the lack of consensus (and in doing so kept source that are WP:BIASED as well as op-eds analysing the situation). We both know the latter two can be kept as long as they are attributed and good sources. The exception would probably be Paste Magazine (which is reliable for music) but is currently facing an RfC on its political coverage. I merely kept it, since consensus wasn't there yet. I don't know why OP is assuming I have a dog in this fight and being a bit condescending (not trying to start a fight here, but that's how the user comes across in their responses to me). I've been neutral in a lot of the fights going on in that page. I'm merely trying to improve the situation.

In fact, I've thanked most of their edits their and added many RS to the article (a CNN source, Business Insider, Politico, and ABC News). There was lack of consensus on CNN due to WP:DUE, but I added a Politico article that covered the same statement. The only other thing would be the fact that the ABC News clip was a segment of their news coverage they posted on Twitter, but we've both had discussions on that extensively with other editors.

I hope this clarifies the situation my friend. Also, happy new year.

P.S. Unrelated but could you give me tips on my userbox, I inspired myself a bit from what I've seen, but wanted to know what you think since you're a part of the WikiProject. MikkelJSmith (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Again: there does not have to be consensus for the removal of newly added content in order to remove it. If multiple editors have challenged newly added content, then it should be removed until there is consensus for inclusion. This is not rocket science. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I mean there was lack of consensus for the removal in this case. MikkelJSmith (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Again: there does not have to be consensus for the removal of newly added content in order to remove it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I mean I've edited multiple times with Ahunt, and when there was no consensus for removal, we reverted the edits. MikkelJSmith (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Newly added content that was challenged by multiple editors or long-standing stable content that was challenged by 1-2 editors? Because this is incredibly simple: There does not have to be consensus for the removal of newly added content in order to remove it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems that adding or removing anything from that particular article is contentious, so everyone really needs to get a consensus to add or remove anything. As far as pursuing a consensus goes you will need to take that up on the article talk page, so other editors can participate.

Regarding userboxes, sure I am happy to help. Which one? - Ahunt (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Ahunt, thanks for the help.

For the userbox, it's the one on my current page. It's barely a userbox at this point (not sure how to use the template actually). MikkelJSmith (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You are looking for a better way to arrange your userboxes on your page. I re-did your user page with a new format that moves the userboxes to the right side of the page and allows you to add more text on the left if you like, above of below your existing text. You can also add more userboxes inside the {{Userboxtop}}{{Userboxbottom}} template tags. See what you think. Feel free to revert it, if you don't like that method. - Ahunt (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Ahunt, thanks for your help. It does seem easier. You're the best :D. MikkelJSmith (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Glad that was helpful! - Ahunt (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Ahunt, btw, I just wanted to tell you that the dispute has been resolved. The whole thing wasn't on purpose ; it was a really bad misunderstanding on my part. Anyways, it's sorted now. MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh good. Sometimes zealousness counts against you. - Ahunt (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Ahunt, I'm afraid I'm having trouble with what you're trying to say? MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be obscure. I just meant that enthusiasm is its own reward!. - Ahunt (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks,  Done - Ahunt (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue Manual

Mmmm I see your point. I did flick over the references which have various domains but now on opening them I can see they are nearly all sort of official. I've done some googling and although there are lots of hits again they all seem to be official. Looking at news hits all I found are a bit tangential. This leaves me in a quandary, to my mind the subject is definitely notable but I can't demonstrate this by cites. I think really you should bite the bullet and put it to AFD if you feel it doesn't warrant an article rather than insisting on a maintenance template Lyndaship (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree that is seems like it should be notable, but then it misses WP:GNG, with mostly just WP:PRIMARY refs. It is worth mentioning that there are many military and government manuals that are very influential, but have probably have never had more than passing mentions in third party refs, unlike say novels. - Ahunt (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I suspect if it went to AFD it would be a keep so although you are right on WP:GNG it would come down to WP:IAR hence I suggest removing the template without going to AFD Lyndaship (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes you are probably right on that. The tags were there of course in the hope that someone would improve the refs, but go ahead and remove the tags, if you like. - Ahunt (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Would you mind...

...clarifying your position on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rescue of Dustoff 65 into a Keep or Delete vote. thanks Mztourist (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on this subject. I have been intentionally waiting for more people to comment before I get off the fence on that one. I really am not swayed either way and have been waiting to read what others think first. - Ahunt (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

regarding thanks

please see regarding thanks

Leela52452 (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. There was no further suggestion, just a simple "thank you" for fixing a spelling mistake. It was intended as encouragement for the work you are doing. - Ahunt (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are Welcome

Rocky 734 (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here! - Ahunt (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

What are "removable shoes"??

From Leonardo Wins U.S. Navy Helo Trainer Deal, seventh paragraph: "reinforced skids with removable shoes". Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, an excellent question! Hueys and Kiowas use these as well, so I am well acquainted with them. "Shoes" are basically "removable and replaceable wear plates" that are bolted to the bottom of fixed helicopter skid gear. They take the abrasion from events like run-on landings on asphalt and save the actual skid assembly from wear. Without these, every year or so you would have to replace the whole skid assembly, perhaps more often. Replacing them involves jacking up the helicopter and then removing four to 14 bolts per shoe, replacing the shoe and then re-inserting the bolts. It is a quick job, perhaps an hour or two. They typically look like this. Hope that explains? - Ahunt (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, you explained it very well. - BilCat (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Glad that was helpful! - Ahunt (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Naughty page

@Ahunt: This page User:GeneralIroh/Userboxes has at least four userboxes that aren't typed up correctly. They are most likely causing trouble for Category:Userboxes, can you spank this naughty page.Catfurball (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I am seeing four userboxes there which are directly formatted on the page User:GeneralIroh/Userboxes, rather than transcluded, but I don't see how they are impacting Category:Userboxes. Can you give me some more information on what you are seeing there, so I can address it? - Ahunt (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ahunt: I looked to see if this page was screwing up Category:Userboxes, it couldn't find it in the categories that I looked at. I'm thinking that those userboxes don't have categories yet. But I did find 5 naughty pages that I wasn't looking for.Catfurball (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, well if you find more that need fixing, drop me a note! Thanks for all your work on this, too. - Ahunt (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

J/Boats

J/22

thanks for the thanks - I raced j24s for 5 years in the early 00s (Manhattan YC) and raced a j44 to Bermuda in 08. I was surprised there wasn't a page for them and started writing one mid-2019. Yours is vastly better then what I had but I am added some of the stuff I wrote in. Hope you like it and feel free to rewrite as you see fit. Thehornet (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Glad that you thought the new article was helpful. It is there now, let's see how it grows over time! Incidentally there are many Js at the club where I sail. We are inland, so mostly 22s, 24s and at least one 32. - Ahunt (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

the Sailboatdata quote at the end of the history section is GREAT - you should move to to the intro para with the rod j part - also I think its already ready for a new section for history and presentThehornet (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, let me see how that fits ( Done). I think the biggest scope is writing boat type articles to turn all those red links to blue links. I have tons of J/22 and J/24 photos. I have uploaded some, but just added one more, of a friend's boat (right), which I used in the company article. - Ahunt (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

sorry about the J/28 35 70 edits, just promoting your work - FYI just fixed the J/88 redirect situation - not sure if you saw where it was going beforehand but I'm pretty sure (1,000,000% sure) it's not what you intended.....Thehornet (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

No sweat, all part of the give and take of a collaborative process. Thanks for pointing out the J/88 page issue. I made a few adjustments there for normal formatting and made the link in J/Boats to J/88 (keelboat), at least for now. - Ahunt (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

No reason

Almost every blank line (and extra horizontal space) was useful at some point to some editor – and completely invisible to the reader. Please, either ask or ignore them. --Brogo13 (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
p.s.

The reason is given in MOS:HEAD, extra spaces in title headings are "optional and are ignored" by the page rendering process, so they serve no purpose. They do, however make the page larger and slower to download and so are detrimental. There is no need for me to ask anyone to remove them. - Ahunt (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) The general rule of thumb regarding optional elements is to use the choices of the first editor to make the choices, usually the article's original editor. I sincerely doubt the original editor will object to Ahunt removing the spaces, nor did Ahunt have need of asking his opinion on the issue to know what it is. :) - BilCat (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The original editor actually established the use of "no spaces". That was me, when I started the article yesterday! - Ahunt (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

This might interest you. (You are both fastidious and invited.) - User:Brogo13 (User talk:Brogo13) 06:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Kodiak Aircraft

Hi Adam, I have some questions on the move of Quest Aircraft to Kodiak Aircraft. There doesn't appear to be a direct source for the new name, and I can't find that name on Daher's Kodiak site, at least currently. Also, Quest Kodiak hasn't been updated on the Daher acquisition at all. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Hmm interesting problem. Back last summer https://kodiak.aero/company/ indicated that the company was renamed Kodiak Aircraft, but there is no page archived to show that. The current page says just "Daher" for the company building the aircraft. I suspect the company decided to reorganize their chain of command. I think we have to go with what we have refs for, pehaps move it back to Quest Aircraft and indicate the company was absorbed into Daher and no longer exists. What do you think? - Ahunt (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It may have just been a temporary legal name, as often happens in these cases. I did find a ref for the name change, but it's on my other tablet whose battery died. I'll look it up in the browser history after it's charged up again. I'd support moving it back to Quest as a defunct company article. Something need to be done with DAHER-SOCATA also, but that should probably be discussed there. - BilCat (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, let me know if you find anything else in a day or some (battery charged?) and then we can make a final call. - Ahunt (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The "missing" ref just said that Kodiak Aircraft was the name used when the deal closed. Regardless, I'd favor the defunct article option. I'll add the ref in history section once I find it. - BilCat (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Super, we might mention the "deal" name just for sake of completion. - Ahunt (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I found the ref and added it to the History section. - BilCat (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

That ref seems pretty conclusive in the naming. What do you suggest from here? - Ahunt (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm still for moving it back to Quest, and making it a defunct company article, with Kodiak Aircraft redirecting to Daher. And your preference? - BilCat (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, I think that is the best solution. - Ahunt (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done - BilCat (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I added a few words on the new company status as just part of Daher. - Ahunt (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Quotations question and defense

Greetings. I made a few minor additions to California roads articles, using a hard source, but editor Rschen7754 seems to have major issues with it and not only reverted but asked Diannaa to investigate the issue. I may need you to help defend my work, if you are willing. Mark Sublette Mark Sublette (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know much about roads in California, but I would be happy to help out in dispute resolution if I can be of service. - Ahunt (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Never mind. I have been spanked. Mark Sublette Mark Sublette (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Husky G-GTHY

This aircraft crashed yesterday killing owner/pilot Guy Beauchemin Godabitibi (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your note here. What is the significance of that accident? - Ahunt (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your question, I'm french. Godabitibi (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Pourquoi m'as-tu parlé de cet accident? - Ahunt (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Because you added a picture taken in 2006 of this actual aircraft on the wiki page. I thought you would like to know it is now destroyed and pilot killed. I was surprised to see Guy's airplane when I googled Aviat Husky. He was a long time friend and a very experienced pilot. Godabitibi (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh I see. The crashed aircraft was C-GTHY, not G-GTHY. I did find it here. Thanks for letting me know about the connection to the photo I took. The aircraft once belonged to an Ottawa area pilot whom I know, but he sold it in 2012. I hope the TSB is able to determine the cause of the accident. - Ahunt (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The TSB may not come here. The autopsy found two blocked blood artery so a hart problem is a possibility. He crashed in conditions where he could have easily landed even with no engine. From the crash site it look like he hit the ice at a high speed above 100 mph and then bounced once on a very long distance. Prop was found half way in between. The cage cell frame was broken in 4 places. So it look like a very suddent drop at high speed. He had just took off about 5 minutes before. He was on it's first flight with it's brand new set of skis. We knew him as a very experienced and good pilot with aircrafts well maintained. He was also partner in a RV-7. His funerals are tomorrow. Godabitibi (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the details. Yes you are right, if the TSB have not shown up by now then it will probably be classed as a "category 5" and no further investigation. It is sad to lose a friend like that. - Ahunt (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Categories

Hello dear Ahunt. Im Iranian, These categories are okay and not attack page. I have autopatrolled on Iranian wiki. thanks Europe V (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. An admin should come by fairly soon and make a decision on the WP:CSD for the two categories, Category:Hypocrisy in Iran and Category:Deception in Iran, which I tagged and either the tagging will be removed and the categories kept, or the categories will be deleted as not appropriate for an encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

And just to close this item, an admin has reviewed my tagging, decided both were disparaging and has deleted both under WP:G10. - Ahunt (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Other wiki links to Iron-hulled sailing ship

Hi Ahunt, you probably recall that I converted the "Windjammer" article to become Iron-hulled sailing ship. I also re-constituted a Windjammer article after some discussion with another editor; it's perhaps just this side of WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. The unfortunate thing is that all the other-wiki links stayed with that article. I have checked the following articles with Googletranslate to confirm that they refer to iron-hulled sailing ships:

• cs:Windjammer
• de:Windjammer
• fr:Grand voilier en fer "Large iron sailing ship"
• it:Nave a palo "Sailing ship"
• ja:ウィンドジャマー "Windjammer"
• nl:Windjammer (zeilschip)
• pl:Windjammer
• ru:Винджаммер "Windjammer"
• uk:Вінджамер "Windjammer"
• zh:大型鐵身帆船 "Large iron sailing ship"

So, I'm wondering if you have the skill to point them to Iron-hulled sailing ship. If you do, you might check my message at wikidata:Talk:Q573206, which may have resulted in this edit at wikidata:Q573206. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, but that is far out of my area of expertise! In general I find if you ignore issues like this some wikidata elf will fix it! - Ahunt (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Quickie page deletion

Why did you delete information relevant to the Quickies records? Jwkane (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for you note here. You had entered "NTSB database shows 101 reportable incidents causing 15 fatalities" under the "Recognition and records" section. I removed it with the edit summary, "not "recognition and awards", no context given". So, as I noted, there were two problems with your added text. - Ahunt (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Death of Aaliyah

Hi Adam, I've requested that the title of this article be changed but I can't get it to appear at WPAVIATION Announcements. If you have time could you take a look please? - Samf4u (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I am not sure how to do that either. I usually just list these manually, so I will do that. - Ahunt (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done in three places: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force - Ahunt (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Well done! Thanks Adam. - Samf4u (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully we will get some good participation in the discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Pratt & Whitney F135 page

Thanks. I got mixed up somewhere, and thought I was on the X-35 page or something. Too many tabs open, and too tired! Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

No problem, we all watch each other and fix things. Collaboration works! - Ahunt (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I mean (User Ainali) and (Gnoeee) Ptinphusmia (talk) 08:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

About vandalization in article "Military"

I am very sorry. I was trying to update the list of countries by millitary power, but my network was so disruptive, so I tried to save part by part with some random word in what did I changed section. but after getting warning I gave up editing. I did not mean to vandalize any page. Kingarthur581 (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment

Please do not post on my page until {|markup formatting `${error}: error`|}<//p>>> ~~ tilde tilde 20:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC) name here interpolation boundary only clever people understand tildes Mrspaceowl (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, I have no idea what you mean, though. - Ahunt (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

You appear to have made an error in your attribution. Mrspaceowl (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I am still not sure what you mean here. Perhaps you can explain in some more detail, so I can figure out what this conversation is about? - Ahunt (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Guidance on userboxes

Hi! I noticed you corrected errors on my userboxes. Thanks for doing that. I'm asking for your help once more in doing this correctly. I have been trying to put more user templates there but its not coming out right! It keeps appearing on the right side, scattered and in red. This appears the space under the already installed userboxes templates is full but I doubt that is the case. (talk) 14:08 18 February 2020 UTC Ptinphusmia (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your note! I am happy to help out where I can do so. If you are talking about your user page: User:Ptinphusmia then I can help organize your userboxes, if you like. The one red link you have there: User:Ptinphusmia/World War Cenotaph doesn't seem to exist. Is that intended to be a userbox? If so perhaps I can help you create it. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the offered assistance. I sure need it. Go ahead and do that please. And still let me know how you did it so I learn as well. The one red link is not a userbox and should be deleted. I also want to put this userbox template -

This user is a Participant of the Wikimedians for Sustainable Development User Group

but couldn't. Could you help me out as well and tell me how you did it. Between: how do you put a link when writing a sentence ? I'm not talking about wikilinks now which are usually in blue. I am participating in Wikimedia education greenhouse online course where I saw a sentence, with some of the words in green. The words, when clicked on, takes you to that particular subject. For example...sample logic model on wikimedia, when clicked,takes you to a sample logic model picture on wikimedia. How is that done? Ptinphusmia (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

There are truly a lot I'm yet to learn here and sometimes, doing it all alone seems tiring Ptinphusmia (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

About the green-linked text, I actually don;t know. Can you link to a page that has it? Perhaps I can figure it out!

I made two edist to your talek page and organized your user boxes vertically with {{Userboxtop}} and {{Userboxbottom}}. See what you think of that arrangement and feel free to revert if you don't like it. - Ahunt (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

This is the link of the green linked text which is found at the first sentence of the last paragraph of the reply by Gina Bennett. The green linked text there says sample logic model from Wikimedia, which when clicked, takes to the sample logic model. https://wikimedia-education.moodle.school/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=386. Thanks for the edits on my talk page. Its more better now. But then, it seems I can't add further userboxe templates. And I wish to add more. How do I do this please? Ptinphusmia (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't seem to even be a member of that. I am not sure it is even using the same mark-down language that we use on Wikipedia, seems to be a different platform.

To add new userboxes just put the template links in between the {{Userboxtop}} and {{Userboxbottom}} tags. - I'll do a demo one for you there, so you can see. - Ahunt (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Wow...thanks! I'm truly happy for your immense support. Let me check the demo one. Ptinphusmia (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I have seen the demo. But I tried doing similar thing with this userbox template--{{Wikimedians for Sustainable Development}}, but it keeps showing a scattered red coloured text. I don't know what I'm doing wrong Ptinphusmia (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that is because the template is a redlink - it doesn't exist yet! - Ahunt (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Ohh! Okay. Though it displayed properly on other participants userpage....like User:Ainali Ptinphusmia (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Ainali doesn't have a link to "Wikimedians for Sustainable Development". - Ahunt (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I think he means the userbox on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ainali . - BilCat (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Okay I checked that page and it has https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Wikimedians_for_Sustainable_Development as a userbox. That is on meta, so won't show up as a template on en.wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Spammer

Nalinnishant9 had already gotten {{uw-spam3}} and even after the brief ensuing discussion is clearly not willing to listen. I appreciate your good-faith {{uw-spam2}} after the latest round, but I blocked as just a typical blog-spammer. If you think there's hope, let me know and I could unblock. DMacks (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Nope that is fine, my mistake! - Ahunt (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for re-checking. DMacks (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)