User talk:Ahunt: Difference between revisions

I do not remove personal attacks directed at me from this page. If you spot any, please do not remove them, even if vile, as they speak more against the attacker than against me.

scope

not sure i might havegone over the scope - with ships with sails - my recent edits - watcha think? JarrahTree 12:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean there! Can you give an example? - Ahunt (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

16:55, 5 February 2021 diff hist +39‎ Category talk:Sailing ships of Italy ‎ Assessment: Ships, +banner shell, +Sailing (Rater) current rollback: 1 edit

16:54, 5 February 2021 diff hist +5‎ Category talk:Sailing ships by country ‎ Assessment: Ships, +Sailing (Rater) current rollback: 1 edit

16:54, 5 February 2021 diff hist +99‎ Category talk:Sailing ships of Ireland ‎ Assessment: Ships, +banner shell, +Sailing, +Irish Maritime (Rater) current rollback: 1 edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Age_of_Sail_ships_of_the_United_States

are some ... just very sensitive to the brain spillage style of adding projects..

there are ships who can only function by sail - so the connection

JarrahTree 14:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I probably have referred to my aversion to 'water sports' creeping into sailing issues - but then when I look at the article sailing - the lead para has in the tex distinct inclusion of sailing ships - just that few project taggers have bothered in the past - felt that a check was needed, but the more I look at the original scope/intent - its no big deal, just so few have ventured - as far as I can tell JarrahTree 14:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

That looks fine to me! - Ahunt (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

MayaForeignLanguageCorrespondent

Hello,

I am still inexperienced with Wikipedia, but I would like to change that quickly and take part in improving, expanding or creating texts. My passion is languages. I am also a long-time companion of the company founder "Hybrid Airplane Technologies GmbH" and participate in projects as a freelancer. I have proposed future changes to be evaluated as paid work and thus disclose that I carry out adaptations on the relevant pages "H-Aero" on behalf of "Hybrid Airplane Technologies GmbH"--MayaForeignLanguageCorrespondent (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for stating that. So as per WP:COI, you need to stop editing the articles associated with H-Aero and instead propose changes on the talk pages for neutral editors to evaluate for inclusion. - Ahunt (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

This might be interesting to you

See https://news.bellflight.com/en-US/167709-instagram-of-the-month-major-brian-lundy . BilCat (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Good story! Yeah we have trained the JDF pilots for decades. I trained along with some of them back in the 1980s. - Ahunt (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I thought you'd like it. I got there from this story about the JDF buying JRXs. They seems to love those Canadian Bells. BilCat (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

They always have been a very small organization with a mixed fleet of mostly seized aircraft, but it now looks like they are moving to a more unified fleet. They do mostly anti-narc and SAR work. - Ahunt (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Jampresident (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Gallery

Hi! I have a plan to put pictures decriptions later. Can I add gallery with descriptions? Like in Women's suffrage in New Zealand#Gallery? --Nickispeaki (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. WP:GALLERY is pretty clear on this: A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons. Generally, a gallery should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text. It is not the lack of captions but just using a gallery to "shoehorn" more images than would fit in an article. Also the images you had in that gallery were all pretty much non-encyclopedic, other than the one I salvaged. We don't need closeup photos of the cabin doorstep, or the cockpit headliner and so on. These might belong in an aviation trade publication's detailed review, but they don't belong in an encyclopedia article. - Ahunt (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Forces on sails

Hi Ahunt, there is a discussion at Talk:Forces on sails#A sail in not "like a wing" that you may be able to contribute some insights to. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, let me have a look. - Ahunt (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit review

Hi Adam, could you look at this edit? I reverted it primarily because it was unsourced, but it's also quite confusing and confused. Two of the problem phrases include "inline engine configuration" (The engines look to be side by side to me), and "the exhaust gasses were instead pumped out the sides and not into the helicopter's rotor wash" (Huh? The exhausts are still under the rotors!). To be honest, sometimes aerodynamics isn't as intuitive as I think it should be, so this could all be correct. Either way, it needs sources to remain. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Probably best to remove it as unsourced. I have no idea what he means by "inline engines" as, yes, they are mounted side-by-side, with the exhausts ported to each side. While it is true that the exhaust would not be disbursed in forward flight in this configuration, as the rotor wash goes back, his assertion that western helicopters of the same period disburse exhaust gases into the rotor system is not true, see the OH-58 Kiowa, UH-1 Huey or UH-1N Twin Huey for instance. This is not a simple issue, either, as routinely putting the hot exhaust gas into the rotor on an on-going basis can cause blade delamination. In a hover the Mi-24 exhaust gases would be quickly disbursed, however.- Ahunt (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. It's amazing the things people add to Wikipedia. I should have kept a list somewhere! BilCat (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

LOL, that could be a long list! - Ahunt (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's another gem! You can't make this stuff up - Oh wait, they did make it up. :) BilCat (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Well that was almost brilliant grasp of the obvious. - Ahunt (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Time for a small memory wipe for that... -Fnlayson (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:Entwicklung und Erprobung von Leichtflugzeugen aircraft

Good afternoon. Besides a grammar error, I don't quite understand the purpose of the Category:Entwicklung und Erprobung von Leichtflugzeugen aircraft. Would you please be so kind to enlighten me? Thank you. Regards --Uli Elch (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, but I don't understand your question. It is a category for aircraft built by that company, Entwicklung und Erprobung von Leichtflugzeugen. We have categories for most aircraft manufacturers, like Category:Boeing aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It feels a bit strange that there is no article in the company's "home WP", de:WP, and it is only very briefly mentioned. There is no "Handelsregistereintrag", registration, for that company in Germany. Additionally, all links in the article here appear to be dead. Thank you for your reply anyhow! Regards --Uli Elch (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) What's the grammar error? BilCat (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It certainly is a small company - or was, as it seems to have disappeared. I will update the article accordingly. - Ahunt (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

LifeHacker

[1] Hello friend. The argument that LifeHacker is unreliable comes from RSN. Was a small 2020 discussion with a 2 to 1 consensus that it was unreliable. That's not a huge consensus though, so I won't revert. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. Yes, that is not a very conclusive discussion. Regarding the ref itself, it seems well researched and written, so obviously the writer has some knowledge of the subject. I also removed the "primary sources" tag, as the article has dozens of other, third party sources. - Ahunt (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The high number of GitHub citations gives me WP:DUE weight concerns. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, those are WP:PRIMARY, but there are many third party refs cited as well. - Ahunt (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Viking 110, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edgewater, Florida.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy anniversary!

@Ahunt: I've been aware of your editing since we both worked on Chrome OS, ahead of any hardware implementation. With Google announcing the 10th anniversary of the Chromebook, it seems our efforts have now extended beyond a decade! Would that all social media output were this sustained, productive and civil. Best, Barte (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, great to hear from you! Yes, it has been great collaborating with you over the last decade on that series of articles. I think one of the biggest differences between Wikipedia and purely social media is here we are working towards a common goal, to create the best and most accurate encyclopedia ever and it looks like we are doing that. I tend to think of us as being congenial colleagues, kind of in the same way as if we were working in the same department at a university or similar. Everyday here we seem to prove that collaboration works. I look forward to many more years of it. - Ahunt (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Good analogy: I completely agree. Barte (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

"truly awful quality photo"

The photo in question

A slightly better one

A better example #1

A better example #2

I was just about to ask your impression of that photo! I missed that that was the photo which they added, or I'd have removed it myself. (I was merely removing the funky px sizings, but didn't actually look at the image first. I removed it from another article yesterday, and one today also.) For some reason, that user has been adding it to multiple pages. Perhaps they're visually impaired? I can't see why anyone would think that's a good photo. BilCat (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Btw, is "truly awful quality photo" a valid reason for deletion on Commons? Or would I be racist for nominating it? BilCat (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Well Commons has many better photos of that person and also a policy that says Reasons for deletion ... Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality. So I would say it can be sent for a deletion discussion there under that criteria. It seems that the editor who keeps trying to insert it all over en.wikipedia is also the person who uploaded it to Commons, although it is a public domain USAF image. - Ahunt (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

From the photo gallery that image is taken from, most of that batch is too dark to be really useful. (And yeah, I noticed the same user had uploaded it.) I don't know if any of our WP:AIR resident photo gurus (Fox and Marc) can improve the images or not, or if we should even bother asking. Most of those photos don't show all that much interesting anyway. I've seen much better cockpit and aircraft interior photos than that batch. For example, these 2 from an RAAF C-17 cockpit are much better, especially the views and angles, but then the C-17 has "eyebrows" which let in more light. If we had some like those that were of the CoS instead, that would be worth keeping. BilCat (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it is needed anywhere, really. As you note there are better photos and the Aircraft pilot article has sufficient photos anyway. I don't see any application for the initial photo discussed here - it is only a good photo of a shoulder, nothing else. - Ahunt (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

He'd also added it to 22nd Air Refueling Wing, where it is perhaps more relevant. But again, not that particular photo. BilCat (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Except that the subject is head of the USAF, not even a member of the 22nd Air Refueling Wing. The most amazing thing about that photo is that it not only fails to show the person, but also fails to show anything about the aircraft. It ought to be deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I stated "perhaps" because I figured a wing or squadron would be pleased to have a CoS visit and fly one of their aircraft. Granted, this isn't "their" page, but a good photo could be illustrative of such a visit. BilCat (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome template

Hello, Valtare, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Ahunt (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

@Valtare: Yes, that is a welcome message that I left on your page. Not sure what your question is or point of posting it back on my page through. Perhaps you can elucidate? - Ahunt (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Question

Is there a simple way to make a user box appear really big? Something like a wrapper that I can just put the userbox's name into. I have one I'd like to make big enough to go across the top of my user page for a few days. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It's this one: {{User dst 3}} BilCat (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bill: LOL, topical! I just tried a few experiments and may have it. The size of a user box is determined by the size of the text and the image, so if you take the coding and make those adjustments you can get:

This user loathes, but is forced to observe, daylight saving time.

Feel free to adjust the image (id) and the font size (info-s)!

Coding to use for this is:

{{userbox | border-c = silver | id = [[Image:Windup alarm clock.jpg|346px]] | id-c = silver | info = This user '''loathes''', but is '''forced''' to observe, '''[[daylight saving time]]'''. | info-c = white | info-fc = {{{info-fc|black}}} | info-s = {{{info-s|20}}} }}

- Ahunt (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I found {{Userbox-w}}, which is a bit wider, amd copied in the same coding. BilCat (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, good. Always more to learn here! - Ahunt (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I find it useful to check the template page for instructions, see also links, etc. I don't always understand the more intricate coding, butnI usually learn enough to break things! BilCat (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

"Trial and error" is more fun! - Ahunt (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

If I'm doing it, there will still be errors, and then come the trial! :) BilCat (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Or a more Kafkaesque turn. - Ahunt (talk) 11:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

"Vacuum-bagged" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Vacuum-bagged. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 15#Vacuum-bagged until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks,  Done - Ahunt (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Seeking Input on Original Research Issue

Hello and thanks again for working with me on edits to the Google Chrome article. I hope all is well. At the moment, I'm working on edits to an article that I think has an issue with original research. Before taking it through official channels, I wanted to run a summary of the issue past you, and a handful of other editors I also respect, to check my thinking on this and gauge what consensus might look like.

Here is a summary (and you are probably only about three clicks away from the article if so motivated):

1. A college student conducted research into a major company that uncovered lax security practices that needed to be corrected.

2. The student self-published the research on a blogging platform and got a lot of attention. He also admitted to taking up a short position on the company’s stock and stood to make money proportionally to how much his story could depress the price of the stock.

3. A major business newspaper ran a story on him and described the problems his research revealed about the company.

4. The Wikipedia article about the company has a weighty section that references the student’s self-published story almost exclusively.

5. I’m seeking to build a consensus that: the self-published article is OR and shouldn’t be used as a source. The controversy can and should be mentioned, but should be limited to what reliable sources published about the student’s research.

It seems to me that without relying on the legal teams and journalists behind quality sources, Wikipedia becomes vulnerable to short sellers who smell blood in the water and seek to inflate negative stories, even in the short term, just to boost a short sale.

Given the admission of short selling the stock and the self-published nature of the source, would you agree that the self-published article should be disqualified as a source in favor of the reputable newspaper's version? Thanks again and looking forward to your feedback. SBCornelius (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Well that is a fun story, alright! Yes I agree with you. His self-published paper is WP:SPS and should not be used. The controversy, as covered in WP:RS should be covered. These two policies greatly reduce the chances that Wikipedia would contribute to the stock dropping in value. - Ahunt (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing this so quickly. It seems obvious to me, but since I have COI here, I wanted to validate my thinking with multiple people and there seems to be agreement that this isn't right. Would you have any objections to me pointing to this discussion when I bring this issue up on the article's talk page? I don't want to pull you into anything, but I would like to show that I have done my homework. Thanks again. SBCornelius (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, feel free. I stand my my comments! - Ahunt (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Too promotional?

Hi Adam, could you looks at these two edits? While not citing primary sources, the overall tone and size of the additions seems to weighted to me. Am I just being nit-picky? thanks. BilCat (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I was just looking at those same edits and thinking the same thing - they read like the marketing department wrote them. Go ahead and remove them, if you like. - Ahunt (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. BilCat (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Help plz!! Issue w/citation

Hi! I know you’ve reached out to me before, and I don’t really know anybody. I mostly do grammatical edits, but I want to fix (mostly, add citations) some articles now.

I’m getting an error OVER AND OVER, and this help page was no use :-/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Cite_errors/Cite_error_ref_too_many_keys

Please see my talk page or else the article/subsection to which I’m trying to add ref #23/immediately after existing 22… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States#Aviation_fuel_taxes

TIA!!! Gobucks821 (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: Thanks. I swear I tried EACH section w/and w/o quotes. Thanks again! I tried adding the dispute tag because that section seems outdated entirely, per that same source. Apparently I used it wrong? If you can advise/do proper use, I’d appreciate. Either I will amend or just to let others know it appears erroneous. Gobucks821 (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem, drop me a note anytime! The ref error was just a quotation mark issue, as you can see where I fixed that. I also fixed the "outdated" template and implied a few tags, too. - Ahunt (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Adam for taking care of my ham-fisted editing on the Audacity (audio editor) page, very much appreciated. As you were carefully and skilfully adding a citation to my recent change, I was trying to do the same and failing badly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter H Sampson (talk • contribs) 13:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

No sweat, collaboration works! - Ahunt (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

"60i" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 60i. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 22#60i until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Answered there. - Ahunt (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Gossamer Condor photos

Hi Adam. I just looked at the MacCready Gossamer Condor page and noticed that someone has swapped out the previous photos of the Condor and substituted photos of the Gossamer Albatross II instead! I would go in and try to revert or otherwise correct this flaw, but: • I'm a relatively inexperienced Wikipedia editor, and • Since I'm mentioned on the page, it might be improper for me to edit it in any case.

I notice in the talk on that page that a couple of other people have noticed the defects in the photos too.

Thanks for your help! Bryan

Bryanlallen (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on this. I have switched the image back to File:Gossamer Condor.jpg. That said we seem to have an issue with file naming at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Gossamer_Albatross and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Gossamer_Condor Perhaps you can help us identify which of the duplicate photos are which aircraft? - Ahunt (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Adam. Thanks for the quick work!

Yes, the photos are a bit of a mess.

On the page "Category: Gossamer Albatross" the first photo (in hangar) is of GA II, 2 & 3 are correctly labeled, photo 4 (ground crew) is of GA II, photo 5, 6, and 7 are of the channel-crossing Gossamer Albatross (wing ribs and other details give it away), the SVG file is a mess and mostly in the imagination of the artist, and the ninth photo is GA II (NASA logo plus wing ribs gives that away.)

On the page "Category: Gossamer Condor" the first JPG (a drawing) is a mishmash of Condor and Albatross so representative of neither, the second, third, and fourth ones are Gossamer Condor (though the third one is a drawing of the earlier Mojave-version Gossamer Condor), and the remaining photographs 5-8 are all of GA II at NASA Dryden.

Don Monroe has photos of all the MacCready aircraft; see: http://donaldmonroe.com/

Thanks!

Bryanlallen (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll see if I can get those renamed correctly. - Ahunt (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay I have fixed the ones I can fix, but in the case of the Gossamer Albatross II misidentified as the Gossamer Condor, the problem there traces to the US Government records, where these photos come from: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/17497963 - Ahunt (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Akaflieg Braunschweig SB-5 Danzig

I looked at the WP policy concerning non-notable air accidents and my addition to Akaflieg Braunschweig SB-5 Danzig did not meet the criteria for inclusion, as you suggest. I've now come at it again, from a totally different direction.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

That is fine like that, I will just move it to the "design" section though. - Ahunt (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you again for your help with the aircraft specification merger it made it a lot better and easier. It's now finally finished. Take a Swedish cinnamon bun as a token of my appreciation! --Trialpears (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I am glad that my input has been of some use to you. You have done great work there. - Ahunt (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of reviewing drafts

Hey Adam, ("Hey" being Southern American English for "Hi") could you look at at Draft:Truculent Turtle, specifically quality of sources and completeness of coverage? I still need to condense the body from three separate blurbs to a single organized narrative, but beyond that, is there anything you see that needs to be done? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for you note! I had a read over it and it looks basically good, except the point-form paras need converting to prose, which is basically as you noted. The two refs are authoritative and should be sufficient to establish notability, I would think. - Ahunt (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata project Sailing

Hi Adam. As you are the most active on WP:SAIL, I wanted to draw your attention to Wikidata project Sailing. Best and thanks again for the amazing contributions on WP:SAIL. simon (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Great to hear from you, I will have a look. - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

See this?

See here for a double "Huh?". BilCat (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

LOL, I am not finding that in any sources I can see! - Ahunt (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't even bother looking for a source! Certainly not a "controversy" even if true. BilCat (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Must one of those "slow news days" out there! - Ahunt (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Yup. It seems the FAA inspector was late, but of course we can't speculate as to why in Wikipedia's voice. BilCat (talk) 05:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I found a ref to corroborate that, but no reasons given. - Ahunt (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

List of Linux distributions that run from RAM

Hi. Regarding this revert, I sincerely want to avoid any edit wars or dispute resolutions, and hope we can resolve this amicably. It is my understanding that according to the guidelines about editing other people's comments, you should, "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." and it goes on to say "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection." Well, I have some objections based on the fact that the guidelines also imply that only things like personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism should be deleted. Also, I personally feel that this edit was a misinterpretation about the intention of my post since the whole idea of it was to help serve editors in their research regarding reliable sources, but I honestly feel like you had a bad interpretation of it by incorrectly implying I was promoting original research and including distros using the tool without reliable sources, which could not be further from the the truth. A bad judgement call like that could be seen as a borderline personal attack by some people. However, I did not respond to it as an attack. I responded in good faith thinking it was an honest misinterpretation, and I tried explaining to you that the intention of it was to help editors save time with researching reliable sources, and had nothing to do with OR. The response I got from that was having the entire conversation blanked, which I feel is an inappropriate response, and I would like to see the conversation restored per the earlier statement from the guideline that comments should not be deleted if there are any objections. Huggums537 (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

It was nothing like a personal attack. Two editors (User:Johnnie Bob and me) both removed your talk page post for the same reason, because it violates WP:TALK#USE, as we both explained in our edit summaries: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. If you want to discuss the subject of an article, you can do so at Wikipedia:Reference desk instead. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal. Your addition was removed, twice for that reason. I am not going to restore it and if you do, a third editor will likely remove it. Instructions for how to test software just do not belong on an article talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

If you say it wasn't an attack, then that can be taken on good faith. What I usually do when editors bring something like that to my attention is apologize for the misunderstanding, but you can do whatever you want. I'm not going to restore the post either. Especially not after suggestion has been made about a third editor making a revert. I've already said I wished to avoid an edit war. So, my only alternatives are to convince you to restore, or (ugh!) dispute resolution. I disagree the post violates WP:TALK. I think my intentions about it prove that I was in line with what you quoted above: "Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article." I believe my comment was in the spirit of improving the article, and should be kept in to give editors good ideas about ways they can do their own research on reliable sources and fact checking to improve the article. Huggums537 (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, well thanks for your thoughts on that. - Ahunt (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2021 (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. 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!

Huggums537 (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to close out this thread for the file: the DR volunteer who addressed this DR post agreed with me that the original post on Talk:List of Linux distributions that run from RAM was off topic and thus inappropriate. He did however restore it to the talk page and then collapse it. He also stated that it was inappropriate to bring it to DR. - Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to say I hope there are no hostilities between us over this trivial dispute. You have been very friendly, and helpful to me just recently with the userboxes. I appreciate that very much. I only wanted to see my comment restored, and you have been gracious enough to agree not to remove it again if it was restored, and I can't ask more than that. I have no hurt feelings over this, and I hope you can feel the same way. Huggums537 (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Nope, none at all, just part of the give and take of life here on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, that's great news. I'm honestly not too thrilled about my comment being collapsed and labeled off topic, but as you say it's part of the give and take, so I'm happy to just leave things as they are and go back to being fellow editors again. Huggums537 (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Laser

Hi Ahunt. Why do you say my edition in the Laser (dinghy) article was spammy and promotional ? You are right there was no ref cited (I just solved that), but it's also mentioned on the "Class Association" section of the article -not edited by me- that the International Laser Class Association (ILCA) is the governing body of the class. You don't agree with that ? Best regards--Banderas (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

No in general we don't mention associations at all, unless there are third party refs and we certainly do not mention them in the lede paragraph due to WP:PROMOTIONAL. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Wow!

I'm getting a headache from all the WP:BLUDGEONING. I gave a valid suggestion of a way around this, and all they want to do is wikilawyer over the fine print. Sheesh! BilCat (talk) 03:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:AXE. - Ahunt (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Oddly, the user never responded to my last comments. Thanks for closing the overlong discussions! BilCat (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Well I like to think that he agrees and has moved on. - Ahunt (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Because you thanked me

Ahunt, you thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt...  YOU'RE WELCOME! It's a pleasure, and I hope you have a lot of fun while you edit this inspiring encyclopedia phenomenon! Dam222 🌋 (talk)

15:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC) Dam222 🌋 (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! We were fighting the same vandal at the same time. With both of us on the job we were staying ahead of him! - Ahunt (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

New article: Newport 212

I was looking for new articles to search through and clean up typos. I had looked through yours a few minutes ago, I wasn't able to find anything that needed to be fixed.
I may keep an eye on the article and continue to fix up any typos as it gets expanded upon.
Discount Horde (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)