User talk:Ahunt/Archive32

Hey, I actually copied your deletion rationale for the AFD, but decided to add some more onto it. I ended up rewriting it entirely and forgoing the Dic-def mention completely. I didn't think you'd have an issue with me copying your Prod rationale, though one user seemed not to appreciate it when I copied from their Prod! BilCat (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No that is great - all freely licensed! I just framed the argument slightly differently in my post, but the point remains the same. - Ahunt (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. BilCat (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...and discover you were [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rio_Minho&diff=1029932279&oldid=1029932177 the idiot who made it??!! Facepalm BilCat (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I have done that, too. - Ahunt (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you are serial poster and knowledge dictator, beware in the real world with real people, this is not a personal threat but however i think you must be removed from wikipedia by hijacking an disaster aid aircraft design page with military content and remove my contributions, i have made a reference about warmongers, racial supremacists and fundamentalists like you in my page. you are toxic, leave wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayozek (talk • contribs)

The Five Pillars are the only fundamentals that matter on Wikipedia: "The fundamental principles of Wikipedia may be summarized in five "pillars" (principles)". (Emphasis added.) BilCat (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to close that issue out, but the editor in question above was "indef blocked" for harassment and personal attacks. - Ahunt (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you editing a ton, and usually being pretty nice about it. Even when you revert, so here are some cookies xD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan Persaud (talk • contribs)

Thanks! - Ahunt (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...I Upload a link [https://fstc.in/how-to-become-pilot.html?title=How to Become a Pilot??!! Facepalm User:Fstc (User talk:ahut) 23:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC )

Please, tell me that How can I found Backlinks from Wikipedia.

Contact me : 9717416724 Bhaskar Upadhyay

Hi, thanks for your question. The answer is that you can't, as it is WP:SPAM and we have policies against that. Basically Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your website. - Ahunt (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you kindly read the guidelines I cited and which are located just below WP:BOLDLEAD, namely WP:REDUNDANCY and WP:AVOIDBOLD rather than ignore them? They explicitly say that in cases such as the election articles lead sentences WP:BOLDLEAD does not apply. Surtsicna (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks for your note. I have read the all. You need to gain an actual talk page consensus for your proposed changes, rather than just claiming you have one, when multiple editors have reverted your changes. - Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did discuss with the editor who reverted and we did have an agreement. I am now perplexed as to why you are reverting. You say that the changes "serve no purpose". What do you mean by that? Do you believe the Manual of Style should not be applied to these articles? Do you think that the sentences are better off without links? Surtsicna (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this to the article talk page for a general discussion. Agreements with one editor alone mean nothing, you need a WP:CONSENSUS. - Ahunt (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which article talk page? Surtsicna (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would go with the current election, 2021 Canadian federal election, since that is where the most editors are right now and where you will get the most complete discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am looking forward to your input there. Surtsicna (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, if you read my talkpage discussion-in-question. I wasn't in favour of changing the intros in the articles mentioned. Merely said, if nobody else challenged or reverted said changes? I'd accept them. Well, somebody else did challenge. GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read the books as listed if you have time. Thank you! Desianto F. W. (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Your additions to Aircraft in fiction need actual third party refs to be included. That said, your additions all sound like minor appearances, not "significant roles" as required for inclusion in the article. - Ahunt (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:173.93.107.4. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tackling that! - Ahunt (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you reverted a link to the Tesseract installer for Windows several times. Please consider adding that link again (maybe using https://github.com/UB-Mannheim/tesseract/wiki as entry point which provides more information) because for Windows users this URL is the main source for recent binaries. It is also listed in the official documentation (https://tesseract-ocr.github.io/tessdoc/#binaries). I am a Wikipedia author and personally responsible for those binaries. Mannheim University Library is the main contributor for Tesseract since a few years (https://github.com/tesseract-ocr/tesseract/graphs/contributors). So that's not some random link which someone found somewhere in the net. Kind regards, --Stefan Weil (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not Wikipedia's role to provide links for downloads or any other links beyond the official website. If it is listed on the official website then readers will find it there. WP:ELMIN explains: Normally, only one official link is included. If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances.[8] However, Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website. Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites. - Ahunt (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. If that's the policy, I can understand the removals. But then the current list requires even more removals. --Stefan Weil (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right!  Done - Ahunt (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Surtsicna is alright. I suppose he's doing the right thing, by walking away from Wikipedia & side-stepping his frustrations for a few days. He's a highly energetic fellow, but just goes too fast & quick sometimes, without checking first. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he seems to have not been editing for the last three days. He was on a bit of an anti-lead-bold crusade and ran into resistance to it, so taking a break is better than continued edit-warring and getting blocked. - Ahunt (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu version history has sections:
=== Ubuntu 4.10 (Warty Warthog){{Anchor|0410}} ===
=== Ubuntu 5.04 (Hoary Hedgehog){{Anchor|0504}} ===
=== Ubuntu 5.10 (Breezy Badger){{Anchor|0510}} ===
=== Ubuntu 6.06 LTS (Dapper Drake){{Anchor|0606}} ===
=== Ubuntu 6.10 (Edgy Eft){{Anchor|0610}} ===
=== Ubuntu 7.04 (Feisty Fawn){{Anchor|0704}} ===
=== Ubuntu 7.10 (Gutsy Gibbon){{Anchor|0710}} ===
=== Ubuntu 8.04 LTS (Hardy Heron){{Anchor|0804}} ===
=== Ubuntu 8.10 (Intrepid Ibex){{Anchor|0810}} ===
=== Ubuntu 9.04 (Jaunty Jackalope){{Anchor|0904}} ===
=== Ubuntu 9.10 (Karmic Koala){{Anchor|0910}} ===
=== Ubuntu 10.04 LTS (Lucid Lynx){{Anchor|1004}} ===
=== Ubuntu 10.10 (Maverick Meerkat){{Anchor|1010}} ===
=== Ubuntu 11.04 (Natty Narwhal){{Anchor|1104}} ===
=== Ubuntu 11.10 (Oneiric Ocelot){{Anchor|1110}} ===
=== Ubuntu 12.04 LTS (Precise Pangolin){{Anchor|1204}} ===
=== Ubuntu 12.10 (Quantal Quetzal){{Anchor|1210}} ===
=== Ubuntu 13.04 (Raring Ringtail){{Anchor|1304}} ===
=== Ubuntu 13.10 (Saucy Salamander){{Anchor|1310}} ===
=== Ubuntu 14.04 LTS (Trusty Tahr){{Anchor|1404}} ===
=== Ubuntu 14.10 (Utopic Unicorn){{Anchor|1410}} ===
=== Ubuntu 15.04 (Vivid Vervet){{Anchor|1504}} ===
=== Ubuntu 15.10 (Wily Werewolf){{Anchor|1510}} ===
=== Ubuntu 16.04 LTS (Xenial Xerus){{Anchor|1604}} ===
=== Ubuntu 16.10 (Yakkety Yak){{Anchor|1610}} ===
=== Ubuntu 17.04 (Zesty Zapus){{Anchor|1704}} ===
=== Ubuntu 17.10 (Artful Aardvark){{Anchor|1710}} ===
=== Ubuntu 18.04 LTS (Bionic Beaver){{Anchor|1804}} ===
=== Ubuntu 18.10 (Cosmic Cuttlefish){{Anchor|1810}} ===
=== Ubuntu 19.04 (Disco Dingo){{Anchor|1904}} ===
=== Ubuntu 19.10 (Eoan Ermine){{Anchor|1910}} ===
=== Ubuntu 20.04 LTS (Focal Fossa){{Anchor|2004}} ===
=== Ubuntu 20.10 (Groovy Gorilla){{Anchor|2010}} ===
=== Ubuntu 21.04 (Hirsute Hippo){{Anchor|2104}} ===
=== Ubuntu 21.10 (Impish Indri){{Anchor|2110}} ===
for example:

• Ubuntu 4.10 REDIRECTs to Ubuntu version history#0410
• Ubuntu Warty needs REDIRECT
• Ubuntu warty needs REDIRECT
• Ubuntu warthog needs REDIRECT
• Ubuntu Warthog needs REDIRECT
• et cetera, can you do this? ... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note here, but I am not sure what you are asking. Why would these even be needed? - Ahunt (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks. :) BilCat (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Ahunt (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

for your help Leander Ohlmann (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC) Leander Ohlmann (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that you thought is was actually helpful! - Ahunt (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. Shahed0078 (talk) 08:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you found that "welcome" message helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Citation Barnstar
	Well done at CL 16. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you thought that was all an improvement! - Ahunt (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Im on the National and NSW TS16 Committees. Have made a few edits which you've cancelled. My detail is accurate so it should stay published. Regards Paul Pritchard Sandman1147 (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your note here. On Wikipedia all text must be sourced to reliable sources so that it can be verified. We don't accept original research. - Ahunt (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added two statements to this section. I understand the issue with forums as references for the second statement on model helicopters (will have to find the specs for a model helicopter again), but the reference to MBB Bo 105 references a Wiki article, which in turn references "reliable sources". The statement that "Some variants of the [MBB_Bo_105] are cleared for up to 3.5 positive G force, more than enough to power out of vortex ring state." seems like it should be OK. Using the SkyCrane as a reference, since it is documented as being able to power out of vortex ring state, the SkyCrane max take off weight is 42,000 lb versus its unladen weight of 19,234 lb, which translates into about 2.15 positive G, while the 105 is documented at 3.5 positive G. Rcgldr (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the radio control helicopters, what about a video of a model helicopter carrying a load. In this video, a 13 lb helicopter is able to carry up to a 66 lb load, although stability with the swinging load was an issue, but not a problem with a 60 lb load, so using that, a 13 lb helicopter flying with a load of 60 lbs for a total weight of 73 lbs, translating into positive 5.6 G's. helicopter weight lifting Rcgldr (talk) 04:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. What you need to support the idea that the Bo 105 can power out of vortex ring is an actual WP:RS that says it can power out of vortex ring. Saying it has a high power to weight ratio alone or is aerobatic doesn't cut it, as there are many more factors involved. That would be at best WP:SYNTHESIS. PS I have actually flown the Bo 105 in the anti-tank configuration and it didn't have that much surplus power. - Ahunt (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I meant versions like the Red Bull helicopter, that appear to transition into and out of vortex ring state when coming out of some loops or dives (recovering from a fast decent rate). Aerobatic radio control helicopters are constantly transitioning between up flow and down flow through the rotor blades, without issue, due having five+ times the power it takes to hover. Still the issue is the synthesis, even when it seem obvious, such as one reference that states that powering out of vortex ring state requires twice the power to hover, and then a reference that notes a particular model of helicopter has three+ or five+ times the power required to hover. Example video of the Red Bull: Red Bull helicopter. Example video of an aerobatic radio control helicopter Alan Szabo Jr - Trex 800 Rcgldr (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being an encyclopedia we are sticky about issues like this, so if you want to claim that a particular helicopter type can power out of vortex ring, then you need to cite a ref that says it can actually do that. Anything else is basically WP:OR. - Ahunt (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I thought it would help the article, but realistically the people actually doing this, flying high powered helicopters, are already aware they can power out of vortex ring, and for the Wiki readers not aware of this, it's not that important. No pilot is going to rely on a Wiki article on how to fly a helicopter anyway. Rcgldr (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, WP:NOTMANUAL. - Ahunt (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maclean25 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the notice! - Ahunt (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, could you look at this sentence: "A Canadian government requirement for a licence manufacture also favoured the Lockheed proposal due to a collaboration with Canadair based in Montreal." It just doesn't read right to me, especially "requirement for a licence manufacture". Should it be "requirement for licensed manufacture" or something? I'm just not sure how best to reword it. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually just looking at that. Yes it is a grammar issue, should be "licensed". I'll fix it! - Ahunt (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! BilCat (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, still didn't like it, so I tried a complete rewording. See what you think now. - Ahunt (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely better! Thanks again. BilCat (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the thanks. Ebbedlila (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thanks for the message. What a beast Wiki is to get into. Cheers! J34L0U5Y1 (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that was helpful. Yes, it is a "very mature project" and so there is much to learn to be able to contribute materially. - Ahunt (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...quite like getting an anonymous hate note from an IP in some forgotten corner of the world! Happiness is knowing you live rent free in their heads! :) BilCat (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah I saw that one go by. Psychops win! (Hmmm, Whois = MOLDOVA, REPUBLIC OF) - Ahunt (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, definitely obscure. BilCat (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The backstory remains a mystery. - Ahunt (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me! BilCat (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Small mercies". - Ahunt (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A stray cat showed up at our house one year ago this week. He was about 10-12 months old, small, skinny, and very hungry. He would come in the house, but wouldn't stay without going back outside every couple of minutes. He was obviously house-broken, but afraid to stay in inside. It took a few months for him to settle down and be comfortable inside at all. I think he was either abused, or trapped inside for a long time. Now his backstory I'd like to know! He no longer skinny, btw, and is over 15 pounds! And he's fine staying in the house for long periods, if he wants to. BilCat (talk) 03:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I wonder if the cat is originally from Moldova? - Ahunt (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! BilCat (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	For your hard-work on the 2021 Canadian federal election and many other notable contributions to the Aviation side of Wikipedia. Aryan Persaud (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please revert the edit I made, but properly. The v2 .onion addess is being depreciated soon as Tor is moving to only support v3 addresses. Thanks. Also, how do you sign? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funducks (talk • contribs) 14:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are referring to this edit, which was made by @JohnFromPinckney:. You will need to ask him about that. - Ahunt (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last things first: To sign, you add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your talk page comment. See WP:SIG.

About my reversion at DuckDuckGo: we tend to remove the exact (and long, weird-looking) URL per WP:NOTMANUAL. Additionally, the unexplained in my edit summary was meant to be a hint that you (Funducks) forgot to give a clue about what you were doing via an edit summary. It just looked to me as if you had copied and pasted the same tweet citation right before the other one. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 16:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to hear your thoughts on this edit. Is it any better than this, which you reverted? Thank you. Davide King (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am okay with that addition and the refs. My main concern with the original post was not the story per se, but the ref cited, since PostMedia is not a reliable source of information. As that article explains in November 2019, Postmedia announced that 66% of its shares were now owned by Chatham Asset Management, an American media conglomerate which owns American Media, Inc., and is known for its close ties to the Republican party. - Ahunt (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See here for a big HUH?! As far as I can tell from the photos, the aft fuselage was still there! BilCat (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The original wording makes it sound excessively drafty! - Ahunt (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. "Oops, the president fell out of the stateroom that replaced the aft fuselage again. Maybe we shouldn't take off." BilCat (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ya know ... this looks like a job for an engineer... - Ahunt (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or grammarian. :) BilCat (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commas to the rescue. - Ahunt (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this edit, see User talk:Mark83#Visual editor graffiti. BilCat (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, yes. I have seen a couple of those edits recently where it included turning aircraft serial numbers onto links to phone numbers and I kind of suspected VE was the issue, not that the serial numbers look anything like phone numbers. The issue here seems to be two-fold: 1. that editors are not checking their work before saving, or even after saving and then reverting themselves and 2. VE is utter garbage and should be banned. - Ahunt (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the phone number thing is often phone browsers (or browser plug-ins) "trying" to be helpful rather than Visual Editor. Of course that still doesn't get round point 1 - "my iPhone made me do it" isn't a good excuse for not checking your edits.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good points all around. It does behoove editors to check their edits! - Ahunt (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to be something new. I only recall seeing it last month for the first time, but I don't watch all six million plus articles on Wikipedia. (I'm up to 13,000, and that's more than enough!) So apparently something has changed with VE that is permitting this to occur, even if it's not doing it itself. Yes, users should be checking their edits; however, do we know if it's even visible in mobile view using VE? It may not be showing up there. I've seen weird things on Wikipedia, so I'm willing to AGF till we know exactly what's going on. But yes, VE is utter garbage and should be banned, but since it's a WMF thing, it's probably more likely they'll make it mandatory! BilCat (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_183#Phoning_Germany for an example where this was the mobile version of Safari that was doing something like this.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I noticed that you thanked me for adding the userbox I made to the list of web browser userboxes. I'm a little confused as to why you thanked me as it's not really an edit worth thanking. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, well it was just a "thank you for making the userbox and adding it", but also intended to tacitly answer your edit summary question about whether you got it right, too. - Ahunt (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See this gem. BilCat (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definitively the evils Choice! - Ahunt (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found another one! BilCat (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

whois = Deutsche Telekom AG. QV word salad. - Ahunt (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found another one that should show up on your watchlist, also located to Germany. (Not linking this time to avoid beans.) Very strange. BilCat (talk) 06:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I see that revert you did on that one. Someone didn't take their medicine! - Ahunt (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found another one after I posted that. All from Deutsche Telekom AG IPs, but on different /64 ranges. BilCat (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta be the same person IP hopping. No chance that two people on the same ISP have that same condition! - Ahunt (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure it this is the correct place to communicate with you, So please apologize if not. I read your correction to my insert of some data (MZFW and MLW ) on the specifications table at the B777 article. As I understand from your comments, it is not correct to add kind of "trivial" data into wikipedia articles. That was not my intention. The MZFW (max zero fuel weight) and MLW (max landing weight) are both very useful and necessary data (for real pilots and simmers) in order to plan load and balence and plan a flight. Thank You Congratulations for all your efforts. Wikipedia is a great valuable tool. Joseramonpuga (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem bringing this here, although you could have also brought it to the article talk page. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and is not intended as a pilot operating handbook (POH) for pilots or simmers. Please see WP:NOTMANUAL which is the Wikipedia policy on this. There are thousands of stats that can apply to any aircraft, we only list very basic ones for that reason. - Ahunt (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I sure hope pilots aren't using Wikipedia to get data to plan flights with! That's scary! BilCat (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...the education system in Canada was as bad as in the US! BilCat (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is embarrassing. Facepalm I blame the Quebec education system for that one. - Ahunt (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out one of the sites they "cited" for their conversions. Per https://www.metric-conversions.org/speed/mach-to-kilometers-per-hour.htm, it states, "Mach is a speed measurement based on the speed of sound. Since sound travels at different speeds in different conditions, the calculations here are given for 20°C in dry air at sea level. Mach is typically used in aviation and space exploration." BilCat (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They've finally used the X-15 talk page, but only to issue a parting shot. They clearly don't understand the variability of the speed of sound, but, as with most aerodynamics questions, I don't understand it well enough to respond to counter their faulty science. I was tempted to simply delete it, but this issue has come up in the article before, most recently a couple of months ago, so it probably needs a competent answer. BilCat (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, could you look at this series of edits? The user removed the metric conversions from the flight level definitions. No matter that the flight level is based on feet, shouldn't the metric conversions be shown anyway? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noting that. I reviewed and reverted it, as no reason was given to remove that and I can't see any logic behind it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! BilCat (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, would this article be considered a reliable source? I'm primarily looking to source this edit. If it's reliable, I'll add CU-172 and CU-173 to Template:Canadian Forces aircraft. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that it seems to be a WP:RS - https://canadianarmytoday.com/about/ - Ahunt (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought too when I read that, but wanted a second opinion before using it. BilCat (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, see this diff and my response in the following summary. I might need to kick this up to WTAIR for a broad consensus before the IP insults any more countries/languages. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you got that one right - English Wikipedia, so English pronunciation and grammar. - Ahunt (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wasn't sure if I was unique in my pronunciation preferences on that, but to my knowledge, that's the way I've always heard them pronounced. BilCat (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

#metoo - Ahunt (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've conducted a GA review of the Sukhoi Su-57 and I've listed some of my reasons for why it doesn't qualify and should be delisted until further improvement. I would like to hear your feedback on the matter. Steve7c8 (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, but I don't participate in the GA process. - Ahunt (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another ad-hoc demonstration team article. Is this one notable to you? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This one has been around for decades, but it is just a solo performance, so no more notable than any others like that, such as the RAF Chinook Display Team. I think you probably have to rely on WP:GNG and all the article has now is an official page and a re-printed press release. - Ahunt (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your work on airplane, sailboat, and IT-related articles Rlink2 (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - Ahunt (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, are you able to move/rename files on Commons? If so, could you move File:North American NR-349 Retaliator (34410707756).png to remove "Retaliator"? As far as I can tell from looking on Google, it was never named that. It's not named in the source cited in the North American A-5 Vigilante (Butler 2007, which I have). Thanks. BilCat (talk) 03:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem,  Done. - Ahunt (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! BilCat (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,  Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was too tired to notice your first "revert" wasn't actually a revert but a fix. --Palosirkka (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad that was helpful on second look. - Ahunt (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, User:Hoggardhigh seems to be periodically active as User:173.93.110.93 and User:173.93.123.163. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! - Ahunt (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ahunt. Thanks for the message regarding my lack of citation for the edit I made in this article. I have since found a reference which is the same as one in the article already and it conflicts with one of the other reference sited. One is a published book(3), the other is a website(1) that is not always accurate. I beleave the book is accurate so made the edit again with citation. Sailpair (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. - Ahunt (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions to Canadian election articles — Eric0892 (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am glad you think my contributions have been helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Sailboat types built by Pierce Arrow Marine indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, new information arose that made it obsolete, so it can be deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Ahunt! I would be glad if you could review the page of American International Airways Flight 808 as there have been several vandalism attempts for this page to be a redirect without consensus. I do not think that this should be the case as this article is very notable and that it should be reviewed/some consensus should be obtained before it becomes a WP:EDITWAR. Username006 (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note here. It seems to make our WikiProject inclusion criteria: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents for an article as well as WP:GNG generally. - Ahunt (talk) 12:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Pierce Arrow Marine indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:2010s Brazilian civil utility aircraft indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to correct the DR-109 materials. You said to "prove it."

Stay wrong, that's cool. I sell the plans and parts, and full assemblies. I own the design rights. I know what we make them with. 2600:1008:B126:A75B:E01C:563C:7896:8448 (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note here. You can note that we can't verify who you are or anything you claim without reliable sources, which is why we do not accept original research. On Wikipedia "I know stuff" is of no value, because someone else will quickly show up and claim "they know stuff, too", but what they know contradicts what you know. We solve these problems by citing sources which makes your claims verifiable. If what you are claiming is accurate, then it must be written down somewhere, like say on your company website, where it can be cited from. - Ahunt (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, first of all, let me thank you for maintaining and collecting information about the C&C Pegaso. It was a central information point for me when I was looking into the history of the boat before purchasing it almost 3 years ago. You can believe me that I have been in all nooks and crannies of this boat, fixed or replaced most of the old gear, have the original blueprints and all the historical records of the boat, talked to both Bill and Alicia as well as the Altamiranos, who commissioned the boat in 1981. I decided yesterday to update the page with some new information about the boat. You can revert that, no problem. I am not going to send copies of the invoices for all the upgrades I have added to satisfy your verification criteria. If you decide to trust some media lore instead of a first-hand report, then that is not my loss, it is the public's loss. Your call, I know what boat I live on, I don't need the Wiki to tell me. --TomKnorr (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for your note. We do often run into this problem here on Wikipedia, as you can see right above, in the last section of this talk page where the owner of an aircraft plans and parts company was trying to change a bunch of data on the aircraft he sells. Apparently he has no website that explains what the aircraft is made out of or any other source of the information. We would love to have up to date information on the aircraft and your boat as well, but we can't accept original research. On Wikipedia everything has to be verifiable and therefore cited to published reliable sources, which means we can't cite things like receipts and invoices anyway. Personally I have run into this same issue on software and aviation articles, but managed to deal with it by writing articles on the subject for industry magazines, submitting them, having them edited, published and then citing them. - Ahunt (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your tireless and invaluable contributions to HAL Tejas article — Echo1Charlie (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am glad that you thought those contributions were helpful! - Ahunt (talk) 12:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Your contributions were absolutely helpful. Thank you!! —Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, do you have any idea what type of plane is in this photo? I at first thought it might be a CT-114 or Saab 105, but it doesn't look like either one. Any ideas? BilCat (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting puzzle! I am pretty much 100% sure it is an Aero L-29 Delfin. See this photo for the landing gear, doors and the tail match! It looks from the FAA registry like there are dozens of them in the US these days! - Ahunt (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I just figured it out myself! I had looked through Category:T-tail aircraft, but didn't see anything that was it. Then I Googled "t-tail jet trainer" for images, and it popped up. Turns out it wasn't in the t-tail category! BilCat (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great that we both came to the same conclusion! - Ahunt (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. It was bugging me, so I kept searching after I asked you. I figured it was a military type, probably tandem two-seat, but I wasn't familiar enough with the L-29 to recognize it right off, especially with the limited view. Anyway, it's amazing to me how big the warbird market has gotten with all those Warsaw Pac jets coming over. Would anyone back in thd 80s have thought that would happen? BilCat (talk)

And we had 2 photos of it all this time! I couldn't read the logo in the FlightGlobal pic, but it shows up well on these two: "The University of Iowa". See https://iti.uiowa.edu/av-l29-delfin-jets BilCat (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually in the Cold War (we had to wear extra sweaters...) and never thought I would see the day when the University of Iowa would be in the Warsaw Pact! - Ahunt (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOLOL! BilCat (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Ahunt (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, articles about US civilian aircraft take MDY dates. I corrected one of them, but there are more, and I'm feeling lazy. :) BilCat (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, I can fix... - Ahunt (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Reims-Cessna F406 Caravan II is (mostly) French, so that one is DMY. BilCat (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Ahunt (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was checking Beechcraft CT-134 Musketeer, and it has an MDY tag and date style in the article. However, I looked at several random Canadian aircraft articles, both civilian amd military, and they all used DMY. Should the CT-134 be changed too? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 02:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. In fixing all the Cessna articles templates I found that all are a mishmash of date formats, no consistency. - Ahunt (talk) 02:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprising, given are editors are from everywhere. The Cessna civilian articles should all be MDY, and the military ones DMY. In cases with overlaps, most of those were originally civilian. BilCat (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have changed all the templates I added to mdy, but the articles don't necessarily follow. At least they all have a standard indicated now. - Ahunt (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the right tag is there, a bot or editor usually will correct them in time. Not too big a deal for volunteer work! ;) BilCat (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully then the tagging will at least get the ball rolling. - Ahunt (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should. I just realized I've been lax about checking for the cost parameters in the infoboxes. There are still plenty yet to be removed. BilCat (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noted you taking those out, so thanks for that! I haven't generally been seeking them out, but when an aircraft article shows up on my watchlist I do check it to see if those have been scrubbed or not already, as well as checking for the top templates. - Ahunt (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, I just found a fairly recent orphan article, Rotor solidity. Looks like it was created through AFC, and moved to mainspace in July. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding that navbox, I removed the orphan tag. It kind of walks the line between WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOTDICTIONARY, doesn't it? - Ahunt (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Is there any hope for it, should it be merged somewhere, or Prodded/AFDed? BilCat (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would call it a "marginal" case as an actual encyclopedia article and just let it float for a while and see what happens to it. - Ahunt (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on it! - Ahunt (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Sailboat types built by Ray Greene & Co indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expected, replaced by Category:Sailboat types built by Ray Greene & Company. This one can go! - Ahunt (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Ahunt (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, looks like the validity of "certificated" is being challenged again. See here and following edits. Btw, it looks like me attempt to be cute with "si se puede" ("yes we can" in Spanish, and commonly understand in the US) backfired! They also seemed to have (conveniently) missed the dictionary link I put in the next summary. They're a Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors member, and those editors tend to be sticklers for what they consider "proper English". (I've had run-ins with their members over "utilize" vs. "use" in the past, so I don't expect this person to back down because I cited a dictionary as proof!) Can the sentence be reworded to avoid the contentious wording? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. My change: From their experience with the Trent, Rolls-Royce developed the Rolls-Royce Clyde, the first turboprop engine to receive a type certificate for military and civil use.... I have to admit that I have always found the US use of the word "certificated" to be torturous grammar. In the rest of the world it seems to be "certified". I find that there are always ways of rewording to avoid offending either tradition, though. See what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The other user is satisfied with your change, and so am I. From my research, it's more a British usage than American. FlightGlobal seems to use the term a lot. BilCat (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased that my wording was helpful! It is not word you ever hear in Canada, but then we have pilot's licenses, not certificates! - Ahunt (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Ray Greene & Co indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it has been replaced with Category:Ray Greene & Company. - Ahunt (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it showed up on my watchlist as a redlink, so I fixed it. Don't know why someone hadn't done it long before! BilCat (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, that was my bad typing that started that. I was trying to type WP:COPYRIGHTVIOLATION, but thanks for fixing it so it now works! - Ahunt (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I made that a redirect too: WP:COPYRIGHTVIOLATION. - Ahunt (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've finally figured out the solution to that: replace the "more users" field with "primary user2", "primary user3", and "primary user4". It'll take a lot of work, but in the end I think it'll be worth it. Of course, some users will try to double up the fields, but I think it will be more intuitive in the end. The coding will be a bit complicated, so it's not something I can do myself. Unless I found another infobox that had it done exactly the way we needed it, then I could crib from it. Unfortunately, I'm not template editor, so one of them, or an admin, would need to add the coding. BilCat (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While that makes sense to me, I am not sure it will dissuade the "fanbois". I am not sure anything will. - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it should help with normal editors. Of course we'd get the users asking why "primary user5, primary user6, and primary user7" don't work, but that's better than what we have now. BilCat (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOL . - Ahunt (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ahunt. I remain impressed with all the diligence that you are applying to the world of yachts! Thank you for your work!

As to User:Crosstan, his/her user page indicates that (s)he is in the 5th grade—something that I just realized! So, it appears that we need to be suitably patient.

Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

, I would think so, although they sound bright! - Ahunt (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't treat me too soft. Number one I'm a boy. Number two I still know stuff so don't treat me like I know nothing.D:Crosstan (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. You seem keen and intelligent and we always need more help with this encyclopedia, so your participation is very welcome. I think User:HopsonRoad was just indicating that we need to give you a bit of room for the learning curve here, which can be a bit steep. - Ahunt (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See here. The Google Translate doesn't make their German seem any better than their English. This time it's Vodafone Germany, not Deutsche Telekom AG. BilCat (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A number of years ago a group of English-speaking military members here were given a French language test. As part of the same trial a similar group of French-speakers were given an English test. The results showed very low fluency in the opposite language, which was not a surprise. So the test designers to decide to reverse the trial and give the English test to the English speakers and the French test to the French speakers. Most people failed that part badly, too. What was learned was that about half the tested group were not fluent in any language. - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After 15 years on Wikipedia, I'd say that's probably high! BilCat (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was a sample of different population, but overall ... yeah. - Ahunt (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, as I understand it, a compound helicopter is not the same thing as a gyrodyne, though there may be some overlap depending on the particular design. (If I had to give the differences, I'd say a compound helicopter is a full helicopter capable of all helicopter modes of flight plus higher speed due to a propeller of jet engine, while a gyrodyne powers the rotor solely for take-off and landing, and does not otherwise behave as a helicopter.) I've noticed Special:Contributions/Sikorsky Cyclone has been adding compound helicopter designs to the Gyrodyne, article, and changing links in other articles. I'm not confident enough in my understanding to be able to explain the differences to this user to ask them not to make these changes, especially.if they try to argue with me. Is this something you could take care of? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 08:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right there. Helicopter#Compound helicopter and Gyrodyne explain it well. Basically both have other thrust sources while gyrodynes have unpowered rotors in forward flight. I'll leave him a note. - Ahunt (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! BilCat (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help out! - Ahunt (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the comment regarding the language :) Allgäuerin90 (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note here, but that was actually another editor. I just left you the "welcome" message! - Ahunt (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello and thank you for you great efforts. the word "Saeqeh" is arabic = "azarakhs" in persian = Thunderbolt in english. i'm persian myself and i assure you that it's the fact.93.117.103.57 (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note here. It has been reverted again by another editor, so if you want to pursue this you will need to discuss it at Talk:HESA Saeqeh. - Ahunt (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...at Talk:Airplane#Turbofan section! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do watch that pages, so will see what he says in response to your post there. - Ahunt (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See here and following. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Ish rollback: 1 edit →‎Notable appearances in media: remove non-notable trivia Tag: Manual revert - That nailed it! In fact the ref could be used in the article text to address the myths mentioned, but the way it was entered was just WP:PROMOTIONAL for the ref and not useful for the article. - Ahunt (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]