User talk:Ahunt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Rant on Ski-jump (aviation)[edit]

A, could you take a look at these diffs, and see if they're worth responding to? I've removed it, but if you can give a response, then feel free to restore it. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

While he asks some good questions, yeah it was good to just remove it under WP:NOTFORUM. - Ahunt (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
OK,thanks. Yes, some of the questions were good, but he continued to make conclusions, and assumes that because he can't figure out how the ski jump works, no one else can either! Obviously a catapult is better than a ski jump in allowing higher take-off weights, but I can't see the RN using them for 30 years if they hadn't figured out how to utilize them. As I understand it, the only reason the USN doesn't use them on the big amphibs is that they want a completely flat deck to allow more helicopter spots, which is important to them, and their decks are big enough to allow the Harriers and F-35Bs to just make longer take-off runs. But I'm an amateur too, so I could be as off as he is! - BilCat (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
That all sounds logical to me, but of course Wikipedia talk pages are not the place to do all that. - Ahunt (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
That's why I didn't respond to their post. And I kept it short here. :) - BilCat (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg - you are always welcome to drop anything here! - Ahunt (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Forum, or attempt to subvert Wiki OR policies?[edit]

Have you seen this? I guess it's a slow news day at the AvWeek comments section! - BilCat (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I have now. Yeah your reply was right on, we can't cobble together new OR here and then put it in articles, save that for the conspiracy websites. - Ahunt (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Bad case[edit]

Of IDHT. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Face-smile.svg - Ahunt (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm done responding point by point. If he adds anything to the article, it'll be against consensus, and easily reverted on that basis. - BilCat (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Your reversion of Antonov An-12 6/1/2017[edit]

It seems you cursorily reverted an edit I made to Aircraft in fiction / Antonov An-12.

My edits were specifically for movies, and a primary information source for movies is of course the IMDB.

Be advised this does NOT fall under WP:SPS / Self-published sources as you cite.

What you fail to consider is that the primary quoted source for IMDB is the movie itself. This is not describing a function or an airframe or a moment in history. The citations are certainly not "self published" as you infer. Even the Trivia and Goofs (as colloquial as these may sound) are valid topic headings, in the IMDB vernacular, with verified content. It is truthful commentary and subject to editor and peer review.

The "World War Z" trivia reference is from a quoted interview with the director Andrew Niccol, and IMDB cited as such. The accident report DOES mention the accident, which you again cursorily refute. I cited the plane number, visible in the movie, and if you read the Airliner Accident report where that number is in the header (you need to scroll down the pdf) you will find it well reported.

The Red 2 reference is again clear from the movie, the goof is self evident commentary on the movie, again subject to years of editor review.

It is not as encyclopedic as I would prefer. I will polish the links a little to improve the encyclopedic appearance, but they are valid and do reflect facts. If I had found better sources I would have included them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssaco (talkcontribs) 03:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

IMDB main entries are acceptable refs but the "goofs" and "trivia are both reader submitted pages. Try it, anyone can add this stuff, so it fails WP:RS and WP:SPS. We don't put aircraft registrations in to articles as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Registrations. It isn't rally relevant to this article that the An-12 later crashed after being involved in the film. This has actually happened to a number of aircraft, but we generally don't mention it as it doesn't affect the film appearance, it is really just WP:TRIVIA. - Ahunt (talk) 11:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hughes Aircraft Company[edit]

Any idea what these edits are about? I haven't a clue, but since I'm not omniscient, I simply removed then as being unsourced. - BilCat (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No clue at all. If they exist or existed than articles should be at least started! - Ahunt (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I get the impression it's totally fictional, as I can find absolutely nothing through Google searches on some of the key words. I could be wrong, of course, but we've seen similar stuff many times before, mostly from kids being too creative! - BilCat (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Wishful thinking, perhaps? - Ahunt (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
If we're lucky. :) - BilCat (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:RAAusLogo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:RAAusLogo.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) 17:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown#Does the consensus listed below which are formed from a discussion on the MH17 talk page apply to this International Reactions page as well?[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown#Does the consensus listed below which are formed from a discussion on the MH17 talk page apply to this International Reactions page as well?. Mamasanju (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thus is a bit disingenuous. You have reverted three times and were warned for edit warring, while I only reverted twice and started a discussion on this subject. Your response should be to participate in the discussion I started, not to retaliate with this warning here, when it isn't justified. - Ahunt (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Aloha 27[edit]

I did look in Google books and did a web search. There is basically nothing to establish notability of the Aloha 27. The source you have in the article are run-of-the-mill data sources. The Sailing Joy source is very dubious. I'd be happy to remove the tags if you can come up with good reliable sources beyond factual items like the waterline length. Otherwise, it does not belong here.104.163.158.183 (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixed Article now has three independent third party refs and one second party ref. - Ahunt (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry but you have nothing near good sources. Some of the the sources (an owner's forum, for example) are clarly unreliable. Tags restored. Take note that a revert will put you at more than 3RR.104.163.158.183 (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Your consistent tagging of articles with multiple, independent sources is clearly vandalism and will be treated as such. - Ahunt (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'll have to take some time and research when the A271 was produced. IIRC, after Ouyang went under (1986?), there were a number of boats (Hull number 184-188?) which were finished by "Aloha Yachts International". As the A27 model was registered, the designation morphed to the 271 I think in 1987. I know DH Boatbuilding bought the mould in 1989 and built their first ("Susie Girl") as a Parks 27. DH previously had built 3 Parks 23's. Funny thing, after DH ceased all boat production, we bought the house next door and the A27 mould was less than 100 feet from my front door. Regards   Aloha27  talk  02:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Great to hear from you! That is all great info if you can source it! I don't suppose you snapped a photo of the mould? - Ahunt (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have a copy of the original Ouyang launch brochure featuring the yacht designer and have asked him if I would be allowed to send it to Wikimedia Commons so it could be included in the article. I'll let you know how that goes. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  20:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Brochure can be seen here: http://www.angelfire.com/ns/aloha27/brochure1.jpg   Aloha27  talk  01:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
You can certainly cite the brochure as a ref. It may be more useful like that. We can easily incorporate a primary ref, as we now have so many third party refs included. - Ahunt (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! - Ahunt (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Mr. Perry has graciously allowed me to post the photo on the original brochure on Wikimedia Commons. (Called it a "funny old picture of me") Article has been updated with this new information. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  18:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg - Ahunt (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh I just checked it and the brochure is up for deletion as it is copyright material. It is also probably copyright to the company and not Perry, so will need permission from them. You need to go through the OTRS procedure to show permission. - Ahunt (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
The sources here are very very poor.[according to whom?] One of the recent ones added is from a "sailboat market", a sales page essentially. Nominating for deletion. 104.163.158.183 (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
If you refer to sailquest.com, perhaps you missed the disclaimer that the site is not a commercial one.   Aloha27  talk  20:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:DFTT - Ahunt (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

AW139 edit[edit]

What was this? Vandalism or what? - BilCat (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

It made no sense to me, looked like vandalism, so I reverted it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I wasn't sure either. It looked like someone trying.to cite a Type Certificate Data Sheet, but not knowing what they were doing, or just adding nonsense. - BilCat (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't clear, but it also wasn't constructive. - Ahunt (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Whatever it was, it was weird. :) - BilCat (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Yep, weird and incomprehensible. - Ahunt (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

An AfD entry in need of attention[edit]

Hi.

There is an AfD entry on a software product that I opened a long time ago, but it has received zero responses so far (apparently due to a glitch). I was wondering if you'd be interested in taking a look at it. This discussion is at:

Thanks

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, no problem! I should get to it later on today. - Ahunt (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)