Jump to content

User talk:Ahunt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AirCraft (talk | contribs) at 00:46, 12 January 2012 (→Promotion of Rafale, you say ?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A barnstar for you!

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

Multi-columning

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

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

Glad you found that useful. Adding 30em to the reflist template allows columns to be created based on the reader's browser width, with columns set at 30 em points. That means, since I am using a 1440px wide browser I see three columns, but someone using a more common 1024px wide would see two. It makes the number of ref columns customized to the browser width and thus uses screen space most judiciously. It only works on Gecko and Webkit-based browsers, so not Internet Explorer, of course. IE users should just see one column, but I use Linux so can't test that. It is all explained at Template:Reflist#Columns. Hope that helps. - Ahunt (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That makes perfect sense. I use Internet Explorer so that explains why I see no change. I will return to some of my other creations and make the same adjustment. Many thanks. Dolphin (t) 21:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Super, glad that was helpful! - Ahunt (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just as aside, on my 1440x900 screen, three columns often results in a reference being "split" between columns - and thus being ghastly in appearance - whereas two doesn't. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I get that too on Chrome, but it doesn't bug me! - Ahunt (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British Commonwealth Air Training Plan

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

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

IO-320?

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

These sorts of things do crop up now and then, sometimes Janes has mistakes in it. Continental never built an IO-320, although Lycoming did. Because you indicated that it was a six-cylinder 210 hp engine it has to be a typo of IO-360 as the specs fit. Pretty unlikely to get 210 hp out of a 320 even if the ever did build one! - Ahunt (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with these points and content with you edit. I guess if we made a note in the article about Jane's error someone would cry OR, so sleeping dogs and all that ...TSRL (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was my thought! We have to use some discretion about even reliable sources, which is why write the encyclopedia by hand instead of via automation! - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Some of the San Diego A&S museum collection's licensing on Flikr have been questioned before - see this discussion on commons. I think caution may be needed here.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the warning.TSRL (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that answers that (thanks Nigel)! It looks like they have played "fast and loose" with some copyrights at the museum. I think I uploaded one of their images, have to check its status. - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My gut feeling[citation needed] is that they are probably OK for US images as I suspect that is what they are checking against - but non-US photos should be taken with a greater degree of caution.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Makes me nervous though that they get some of them very wrong. It doesn't inspire confidence about the rest of the images! - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. images should be just fine - most of them are U.S. government pix. In all cases, though, here and otherwise, the thing to do is to "trust, but verify" - if it doesn't pass the smell test, don't move blithely on because "they said so"! - The Bushranger One ping only 13:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More generally, have I got it right that a pre-1957 Crown Copyright photo is OK for direct copying, but the same image in a book is only OK if the book was published >50 years ago?TSRL (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)15:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flash memory emulator

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

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

Epiphany GA Review

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

I can run though the article and fix the ENGVAR problems right away. I stay away from GA reviews, though, as they usually make articles worse, not better. - Ahunt (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For now the damage was inflicted: new section "System requirements" is created. Don't think it'll survive though. Anyway, I would appreciate any input, specifically MOS:ENGVAR fix. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done! - Ahunt (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Cloth-wing ultralight aircraft

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

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

Rotax applications

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

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

Note ...

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

WikiProject Flight Simulation

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

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

A new barnstar for You!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Without Your priceless contribution the Epiphany article would never make it to WP:GA. Thank You! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but you did most of the work on this article recently! - Ahunt (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Australia fleet

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

Thanks for your note, but I don't think I have worked on any of the articles in question as this really isn't my area of expertise. - Ahunt (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disturb you. →εϻαdιν ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 17:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all! - Ahunt (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


MacFam Cavalier

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

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

Season's tidings!

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

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

Merry X'mas~!

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

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

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

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

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

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.


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

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

revertion

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

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

DYK for Partenair Mystere

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

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

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

Cosmos ULM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ahunt&oldid=470890383"