Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Hello, I'm Ahunt. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Pipistrel Virus without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Ahunt (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pipistrel Virus. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Dear Ahunt, may I invite you here to continue our conversation? I think it's not very constructive and proper if we discuss topics about details about archiving links on various sub-pages and references, on the one main Pipistrel page. Thank you! Ymmo (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We should use the talk pages for the individual articles in question, so that other editors can participate in the process of developing the articles. - Ahunt (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ahunt, thank you for all the help with the editing. If you ever want to create a new article about Pipistrel Vertical Solutions sister company, I'll be happy to provide the material. It's still a bit too early for an article about the Pipistrel 801 eVTOL aircraft because there's still embargo on all the material.Ymmo (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think for now PVS can just be mentioned in the Pipistrel article, at least until we have some third party refs to establish notability. The AVweb article is enough to start a basic article on the 801, however. It certainly has attracted enough attention that we should have an article on it here. - Ahunt (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look, great job! Thank you very much. I will let you decide about notability, you have a million times more experience than me. Another source for 801 (this one is as first-party as it gets, however...), is the recording of Pipistrel's announcement at UBER Elevate Summit: [1]. This is the speech of dr.Tine Tomažič, the R&D director. Ymmo (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ahunt, after this certification news, the activity level on all the Pipistrel posts grew considerably, so it came to my attention: on the page of Pipistrel Taurus G2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipistrel_Taurus), the ref#8 doesn't work. It still points to the old domain of the page (www.pipistrel.si instead of pipistrel-aircraft.com). The correct link would be https://www.pipistrel-aircraft.com/aircraft/electric-flight/taurus-electro/ Can it just be replaced without any violation? It now points to a web.archive link, showing the old page. It is a bit different (design) but the information are the same.
There are probably more ref such as this scattered along Pipistrel's pages... Ymmo (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note here. I have added that webpage as an additional ref, but left the old archived ref in place. I also archived the new page. We are pretty reluctant to remove old archived refs that actually support the text, like this one does, due to all the problems of WP:LINKROT. Basically we could replace the old archived ref with your new one, but then the company could move the page again, or change the page text so it no longer has the info that supports the text, or the company could go out of business and the website would disappear. The other factor is that there is no requirement to use the most up-to-date company webpage, as long as the existing ref supports the text then normally we use that, especially if it is archived and thus will not be lost over time. Updating refs to the latest company page starts to look promotional, too, especially if the existing archived page supports the text. - Ahunt (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ahunt, I noticed one more thing on the topic of Taurus. The original page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipistrel_Taurus states all the correct info about Taurus Electro, which was the first two-seat electric aircraft to have ever flown and Taurus Electro G2, the first two-seat electric aircraft to have achieved series production. However, the page about Electric aircraft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_aircraft) doesn't mention Taurus Electro or Taurus Electro G2 (two-seaters) at all, just the Taurus Electro G4 (four-seater) which won the NASA. Since the two achievements are not so negligible, don't you think that Taurus Electro and T.E.G2 should also be mentioned on the page of Electric aircraft? (maybe also another little interesting bit of information: as of today, 179 Taurus Electro G2 have been produced and sold.) Thank you! Ymmo (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ahunt,
after a long while I contact you again. I hope you are happy and healthy!
May I ask for some of your help with editing again?
One year ago I already wrote a post in the talk of the "List of electric aircraft" page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_electric_aircraft#add_another_plane?, requesting some changes in the list, but that didn't happen back then. In the mid-time the Pipistrel aircraft Velis Electro, which has been in serial production for quite a while now, gained a full certificate as the world's first electric aircraft to get one, so I really think it would deserve to be included to the list. It already has its own article too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipistrel_Velis_Electro as do some of the other aircraft that I suggested to be included on that list.
May I ask you to have a look at the matter when you have some time? Thank you so much! Ymmo (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great job, thanks! :) Nothing else for now. If something arises, I will contact you again, if I may. Thank you for your help. Ymmo (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ahunt,
If you have time I would like to ask you for another favour. On the Pipistrel Panthera page ([1]) there is a mistake. The second sentence of the article ("The gasoline-powered version of the Panthera is intended to cruise at 202 kn (374 km/h) for over 1,000 nmi (1,852 km) with a 10 US gph (37 lph) fuel burn.") is incorrect, the data is wrong.
A correct version would be: "The gasoline-powered version of the Panthera is intended to cruise at 198 KTAS (366.7 km/h) at FL 80 for over 1,000 nmi (1,852 km) with a 14.8 gph (56 l/h) fuel burn."
We are checking the data on our website these days so as I compare them with Wiki, I might find some more mistakes in the future...
Thank you! Ymmo (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ahunt, I was just online and I saw your speedy correction of that guy's change :)
If you need images of the WATTs up P.o.C., you can find them here: [2]
You can download and use any image. Thanks!
Ymmo (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I got that one right, at least! Thanks for the offer on the images, but the licensing is not clear there. Unless they are explicitly freely licensed we aren't allowed to use them on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So if I, the contact person at Pipistrel, give you the permission to use our files, you are nevertheless not allowed to use them? :/ If this is the problem, then how can I make a photo so explicitly freely licensed that you can use it? Ymmo (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem there is "proof of permission". There are two easy ways to solve this, though. 1. The company can indicate on the photo page that the photos are "pubic domain" or released under a specific free licence, like a Creative Commons license or 2. the person who owns the copyright can upload specific images to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard and select a free license at upload time. Then they can be used on all the different language Wikipedias. The advantage of freely licensing all your company images is that they will get widely used beyond Wikipedia, often by news media, etc, which is good free publicity. - Ahunt (talk) 11:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Size is usually "as big as you have" and format JPG or PNG. If you post a link to it here then I can add it to articles, as applicable. - Ahunt (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the lack of text about the relationship between the Albastar and Pipistel Apis is due to a lack of refs that explain whether the two designs are related or not. It is an unfortunate choice of names, as it has been used by several unrelated designs, like the Wezel Apis 2, so it creates confusion. If you have a ref that explains that Pipistel took over the Albastar design that would enable us to untangle the relationship. - Ahunt (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pipistrel Apis-Bee is an airplane which wasn't widely popular, so there aren't many mentions of it in media or anywhere else. The only 100% proof that we can provide is that Pipistrel is now the owner of Type-certificate for this model. I can add a paragraph on the Pipistrel website about us taking over this model, on the page which talks about the Apis: https://www.pipistrel-aircraft.com/aircraft/other-products/legacy-products/#1 (paragraph such as "History" or something similar). If you think this is a credible enough source... Ymmo (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahunt & Ymmo I just somehow found your discussion here. A couple of years a go I did the research for de:Pipistrel Apis. The situation is a bit complicated. The short version is that Pavel Potočnik of Alabastar was working as a contractor for both Pipistrel and Alisport on separate projects. He put Pipistrel Sinus wings on a Alisport Silent fuselage and called it the Apis. Alabastar built a couple of these in different versions, then in 2004 AMS Flight (former ELAN) took over production. Pipistrel took over in 2008, and upgraded to a second generation in 2009. Many of the sources I used back then are offline now, but if you're interested I can dig though my archive and see what's still there. El Grafo (talk) 08:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can try, but that might take a while. Do you normally keep these as separate articles here at en: or would it make sense to merge them? They are really just the same aircraft produced by different companies in slightly different versions ... El Grafo (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
or 
) located above the edit window.
Done here - Ahunt (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
