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

Lost in translationEdit

See here. It must lose something in the translation from Q-French! BilCat (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh no, not the Quantum Army! - Ahunt (talk) 01:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Lol. BilCat (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

AMO certificationEdit

I am not sure if your collapsing of the remarks at Talk:Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (Canada)#AMO certification might have been premature. There appears to be a stink brewing in the background over alleged failures of Transport Canada in its treatment of the AME role. See for example https://archive.org/details/wamea-presentation-march-2022 I am wondering whether this topic should be left visible until its usefulness or otherwise becomes clearer. But I am on the wrong side of the pond, whereas I believe you are nearer to the action. What do you think? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

You can reopen if if you like, but all I saw there was a rant about nothing: no refs cited, no proposal to add or remove anything from the article. - Ahunt (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The WikiEagle - May 2022Edit

The WikiEagle
The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter
Volume I — Issue 5
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle

Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

They just keep comingEdit

I have no clue on this one. (And no, HIPPA probably isn't a typo for "hippo"!) BilCat (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. - Ahunt (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
hahaha - I used to work for a subsidiary of TI many many years ago - JarrahTree 10:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
...and survived it!   - Ahunt (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit reviewEdit

Hi Adam, could you look at this edit? I don't know enough about the issue to know if either option is correct, as the instruments in the photo look pretty much the same on each side to my uninformed eyes! Thanks. BilCat (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes I saw that one go by and let it slide too. I can't tell which is correct from the layout either and couldn't find any ref for it either on the photo page, the article linked of the web in general. Normally the student will sit in the left seat on a light fixed wing, but there are are exceptions. - Ahunt (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Should we just remove that part? The more important part is that it's a side-by-side layout. BilCat (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I think that would be the safe approach. - Ahunt (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  Done BilCat (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

System76 Advert tagEdit

I noticed you removed the Advert tag on System76 following my removal of the product lists, but that was only a small part of why I added the tag. The whole article still is clearly written by someone with ties to the company and gets pretty promotional throughout, I was just dealing with the most obvious thing that could be cut right away. I strongly disagree with reverting the tag on Pop! OS, the presence of critical reviews doesn't necessarily change the ad-like nature of much of the article per WP:PROMO.

Photonsoup (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

In reviewing both articles there is nothing promotional or non-encyclopedic in either. If you have a case to make in that regard you need to at least detail it on the talk page as per WP:DRIVEBY, as the reasons for your tagging were not apparent in reading the articles, as neither contain promotional wording. A check of the article histories shows that both articles have had many contributors and none seem to be WP:COI editing. As far as the POP!_OS article goes I suggest you contrast it with others like Ubuntu from which it is derived, Ubuntu version history or Xubuntu as all are written in a similar manner, with encyclopedic descriptions and critical responses. - Ahunt (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
You didn't provide any details as to what your concerns were, but I have done a re-write run though on System76. - Ahunt (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not referring to the version list on POP!_OS, rather the fact that it's written in a very puffy style. See the second paragraph:
"Pop!_OS provides default disk encryption, streamlined window and workspace management, keyboard shortcuts for navigation as well as built-in power management profiles. The latest releases also have packages that allow for easy setup for TensorFlow and CUDA."
This reads like an ad copy, not an encyclopedic entry on an operating system. You're right though, I should have been better about explaining my reasons. Photonsoup (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
It is strictly a factual description. Promotional language would be promoting the use of it, not just listing functions. Regardless, unexplained tagged accomplishes nothing and they usually get removed sooner or later. "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit" means that if articles need improvement then you can improve them. - Ahunt (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


Hi Adam, I'm taking a mostly off wiki-break for a few days, for personal reasons. I'll probably make few edits, but I won't be going though my watchlist line by line. Feel free to aggressively patrol my talk page, if necessary, and as you are able. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Have a nice break. I'll keep an eye on your user pages. - Ahunt (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Most-produced aircraft list revertEdit

Hiya again Adam!

I was unsure about the seemingly off-the-cuff Boeing 737 production figure edit to the Most-produced aircraft list by user 2607:fea8:bc62:da00:e170:cafa:32c6:ca99. (Who doesn't love round numbers, right?) I've never reverted an edit before, but I was especially wondering how & what to say to the user before it got to that... Perchance on the article talk page?

Thanks a gillion!! Benjamin22b (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. In checking the cited ref it doesn't seem to give the current production total, at least that I can find there. Perhaps the ref page used to at one time? In cases like this my approach is usually to revert it and say something like "no ref cited for change in production number, to change this you must cite a ref, please see [[WP:PROVEIT]]". You could of course start a talk page discussion by just noting the edit and asking for a ref. The biggest factor with talk page discussions of that nature is that you have to have your own next step figured out in the event that you get no response from anyone there. - Ahunt (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Merci beaucoup Adam - I elected to revert (first time ever!) and added your suggested text. Had it been a less straightforward/more questionable revert, I would have added a "depressed poet eulogy" on the talk page first. I appreciate all of your unending help; it's a godsend! Benjamin22b (talk) 08:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  - Ahunt (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Lynx AirEdit

Hello! To your query/challenge on the Lynx Air Management section, it's specifically the web-archived version of the page dating to the November 2021 announcement that includes it (though in the much more fruitful/marketing prose that has now been changed), rather than the "live" one that is simply the airline's current web homepage that's open for business. It's just hidden underneath the "+" symbols or (clicking on their names) to expand the text, which turn into "-" symbols to return them as such.

For example, Merren McArthur's passage reads as follows: "A role model in the aviation industry, Merren has spent more than a decade leading successful airlines. Most recently, she was CEO of Tigerair Australia, an ultra-low-cost carrier, and is the former CEO of Virgin Australia Regional Airlines and founding CEO of Virgin Australia Cargo. Before she discovered her passion for aviation, Merren held several prominent executive roles, including Executive Partner at one of Australia’s preeminent law firms, Deputy State Solicitor of Western Australia and Chief Advisor for Rio Tinto Iron Ore." which should be enough to cite that she has previous experience at the noted airlines in question.

I hope this has been of assistance and I appreciate your correspondence. ChainChomp2 (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, we just needed the refs added, so thanks for doing that, explaining where to find them and also cleaning up the marketing language in that section of the article. - Ahunt (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

userbox creation requestEdit

Hi. Can you create one that says something along the lines of "this user has low vision due to macular dystrophy." No colored ribbon is preferred. I've been called out twice today for not reading enough details on multiple complicated template pages. Perhaps they wouldn't be so rude if they could see there's a reason for it. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Sure, no problem. Here is my first try at it. I hope I got the links right and an appropriate image. macular dystrophy is a disambiguation page, so I was guessing the right link is Macular corneal dystrophy. Let me know what changes you would like! - Ahunt (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Code Result
{{User:Ahunt/LowVision}} Usage
Looks great. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  - Ahunt (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your many contributions. - From a fellow GNU/Linux user. :-) Beestalman (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for that, glad you think my contributions have been of value! - Ahunt (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Belated welcome backEdit

Welcome back! Did y'all get a snow storm or something? BilCat (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. No snow, just 190 km/h winds that took out our power and internet for five days. Some parts of Ottawa are still without power nine days later. I have been trying to catch up, as well as rebuild a fence that didn't survive. - Ahunt (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Wow! Glad you made it through safely. No cell service either, or did the batteries not last that long? BilCat (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I actually don't have a cellphone, although my fiancee does. Hers kept working throughout, as did my landline phone, but keeping her phone charged was a challenge! Otherwise all we had was cold water. We did have a camp stove, canned food and a battery-powered radio from the 1980s to listen to what was going on on the news. We did get to read some books in the daytime, although night was strictly candlelight. - Ahunt (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt IIEdit

Why are you so quick to edit things he reverts them before you are even done writing them in. You claim to have sources but doesn't cite them in the text properly or provide them. Obviouisly doesn't read the sources provided because he is adding unconfirmed statements and opinions without citing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Your edits and tagging on this page have now been reverted by four different editors. If you have a problem with this article please describe your issues on the article talk page Talk:Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II where other editors can participate in the discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

What would be considered a reliable news sourceEdit

Please clarify what you mean by "often critical of governments of the day". And just to be clear a news organization getting most of its funds from the government and working on behalf of the government means that it is not independent

Also here are some examples of bias from CBC news:

- https://www.canadaland.com/canada-does-not-want-to-see-itself-this-way/
- https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jesse-kline-the-case-for-breaking-up-the-cbc
- https://nationalpost.com/opinion/raymond-j-de-souza-cbc-bias-on-full-display-in-coverage-of-freedom-convoy-coastal-gaslink-protests
- https://nationalpost.com/opinion/tara-henley-why-i-quit-the-cbc  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasonable Doubt 89 (talkcontribs) 13:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC) 
My talk page is not the right place to bring up these issues. Please take this to the article talk page where other editors can participate in the discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


See my edit here. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Quite right! It is a letter of the alphabet and not a zero. It means "opposed" cylinder configuration. - Ahunt (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
And a 5, not an S. Sometimes I've seen such typos in print books. It's an easy mistake to make if the copy editor isn't familiar with the subject. BilCat (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
"When is an editor not an editor?" - Ahunt (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The WikiEagle - June 2022Edit

The WikiEagle
The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter
Volume I — Issue 6
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle

Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Aero Dynamics Sparrow HawkEdit

Hi Adam, can you look at Draft:Aero Dynamics Sparrow Hawk and see what it needs to go live? I know you worked on ultralights and kit planes for a while, so you probably have a better idea what it needs than most of us. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

It is actually not too bad as it is, needs some minor changes only. I can make those changes and move it to mainspace if you think it is otherwise ready. - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Do you think it needs a couple of "significant" sources? That seems to be what the AFDers are focusing on of late. Other than that, it looks good to me too. It's been languishing since I moved it to draftspace in Oct 2020, so do what you can as you can. Once you're done, go ahead and move it. Thanks! BilCat (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
The sources are a bit weaker than desired, but it seems covered well enough. Okay I will take a crack at it. - Ahunt (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks again. There's no hurry. BilCat (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  Done, now at Aero Dynamics Sparrow Hawk. - Ahunt (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
Thanks for helping to prepare and bring Aero Dynamics Sparrow Hawk into the mainspace! — Urban Versis 32KB(talk | contribs) 02:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! I am glad that you thought my contributions were useful. The article only needed a bit of tuning to be ready for mainspace, so I finished the work up and moved it. Feel free to expand it further! - Ahunt (talk) 02:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Userbox requestEdit

Hello, I would like a userbox for people that have alexithymia as I cannot find one and it would be nice to have one to show that we can't identify our feelings at all. Thanks, Kaue (They/Them) (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your request. Here is my first try at it. Please do let me know if you would like changes made!
Code Result
 This user has alexithymia.
- Ahunt (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks I think it's perfect for me this is being added right now to my user page Kaue (They/Them) (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Oh, super, glad that you like it as it is. Sometimes I get one right "out-of-the-box". - Ahunt (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Haha I like the way you use words funny man Kaue (They/Them) (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Amusement is an added bonus! - Ahunt (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I could think of you and a few othersEdit

https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/conversations/will-oxley-sailing-sydney-to-hobart-celestial-navigation-rpt/13890070 upside down in Bass strait... JarrahTree 10:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
That is a bit too much excitement. - Ahunt (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
but, but - circumnavigation in the wrong direction with people who have never sailed before for almost twelve months (well just short) - I mean that's ailing with sailing, yes? - worth listening - methinks he has the type of attitude towards difficulties that one should have in dealing with fellow internees here... JarrahTree 12:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Lots of adversity! - Ahunt (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
but, but, sense of humour and level headedness required... JarrahTree 12:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I think that could be said for any endeavour in life, but especially sailing. - Ahunt (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
well said sir, so well put...JarrahTree 13:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Well that is one of the advantages of a discipline like sailing, the lessons are widely applicable. - Ahunt (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
ahh existential angst free signs of life - when you create new stubs with not a sign of a wikidata entry - like floating across bass strait on a swell free day (rarer than teeth I say)... JarrahTree 14:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
  - Ahunt (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
pity my edit time tonight is limited, otherwise, like floating... JarrahTree 14:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


Hi Adam, should I bother with a merge discussion for Super Scooper, or just be bold and redirect it? Thanks BilCat (talk) 04:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I would say that there is not much to debate. We don't have articles on nicknames, they redirect to the main topic! - Ahunt (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  Done! BilCat (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I guess I'm getting oldEdit

Do you think part of the problem with some editors is that they are too young to know what a print encyclopedia is, yet alone ever actually used one? Thus they have no real frame of reference for what an encyclopedia is supposed to be? BilCat (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

That is a good theory. I am getting old, too. Many seem to think it is a blog! Of course it is even more challenging in a era of "alternative facts". I guess that just makes our job more important! - Ahunt (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, many think it's communal blog. I was trying to think of the word "blog", but couldn't. I'm still amazed at how many people edit Wikipedia articles who obviously haven't even bothered to read the paragraph or section they're editing, much less the whole article. Sometimes it's clear they haven't even read the sentence! BilCat (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes I see that quite often in reverts. Often the edits add info that is already there or that contradicts cited text. The work here is never done! - Ahunt (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
And just in time to prove my point: See here. Never let a well-written and sourced article that explains something get in the way of a preconceived notion. Sigh. BilCat (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  and a US IP address, too. - Ahunt (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
It's California. Might as well be another country, like Canada. ;) BilCat (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
May have less than a nodding acquaintance with aviation, however. - Ahunt (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The IP? The only rotary engine they know of is probably the Wankel engine from all those Mazdas. But, of course, instead of actually reading the article to learn why this type is also called a "rotary", they change it "radial"! Astonishing. Is there a psychological term for that? BilCat (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
A river in Egypt?. - Ahunt (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
there used to be a bumper sticker in oz in the 70s with the combination of the two - denial is not a river in egypt.. JarrahTree 14:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
the term for the rotary engine in the mazdas sold and used in oz, was very close to the term that in colloquial oz is that of the self entertained - I thought a few plane engines also utilised the type of engine for a while as well? JarrahTree 14:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Life is nothing if not confusing! - Ahunt (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Power-off accuracy approachEdit

Are you familiar with power-off accuracy approach? I think it should be either deleted or merged with Landing (seeing we don’t have a page dedicated to the approach.) Any thoughts? Dolphin (t) 05:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I've done many of those! I agree that the article is far too WP:NOTMANUAL and should probably be shortened to a single para and then merged into Landing. - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Many Thanks. (I’m an old glider pilot so I don’t see anything remarkable about power-off approaches!) Dolphin (t) 12:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 . I learned to fly on gliders, too, so always found power-off approaches easy in airplanes. Now helicopters were another matter - much lower glide ratio! - Ahunt (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Dubious claim?Edit

I'm out of my depth on this one, but it is completely unsourced: See here. It was added by a Ukrainian IP, so presumably the person mentioned is a Russian. ;) BilCat (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

A quick G-search of "Dovgalyuk's formula" turned up nothing on the initial search page (30 items). Perhaps it has another, more comme name. BilCat (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I have never heard of it and a series of web searches on several different search engines turned up absolutely nothing at all. Furthermore the formula looks oddly worthless, too, so "spurious" may be the right term. - 23:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Trust (AGF) but verify! BilCat (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Exactly! No one survives on Wikipedia without healthy dose of skepticism! - Ahunt (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
So true. As we continually have to remind new and not-so-new users, everything must be verifiable. BilCat (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
and make sense. - Ahunt (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I've learned that the best way to handle a new unsourced addition, especially by an IP, is to simply remove it. A lot of users get upset at me for it, but it works. Sometimes a regular editor will restore them with a source, but berate me for removing it so quickly. But at least it got sourced properly, which is my goal. For that, a little blowback is worth it. Usually it's for something I have absolutely no personal knowledge of, and usually no idea where to find it. And I sometimes do follow up with a note to someone whom I think may know, as I've done with you several times for aviation or Canadian stuff. BilCat (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
And then there are the users who identify their unsourced additions as rumors. Sure makes it easy on us! Revert! BilCat (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I saw that one! Some things are easier than others! - Ahunt (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Any idea why they thought that was worth mentioning? BilCat (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
That particular one? Nope. Even if it was sourced and also true I don't think it would be an issue internationally. Turkey is a NATO country. - Ahunt (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I should have checked the IP's location: Athens, Greece! That explains everything. BilCat (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
LOL, yes that would! - Ahunt (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
They are almost as bad as the Indians and Pakistanis, at least on Wikipedia. We don't get too much of that here from Americans and Canadians, but we only go back about 250 years as separate entities. We just can't compete with centuries of religious and cultural hatred! BilCat (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Yep, one thing humans seem good at is In-group-out-group bias!! - Ahunt (talk) 01:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
See, told ya! :) BilCat (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Yup, two more today alone. - Ahunt (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


How good is your French? Can you read it well without a translator? BilCat (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

LOL, not that good! - Ahunt (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


Is Blue (Don Cherry's dog) really notable enough to have had an article for 14/and a half years?? I'm tempted to AFD it, but my neuro-diverse brain isn't working well enough at the moment to form a rational rationale. BilCat (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm. Looks like it was AfDed about 6 months before the current version was recreated, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue (dog). BilCat (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, here in Canada that dog is more famous than Sir John A MacDonald. - Ahunt (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Most Americans know their pop-culture icons better than their founding fathers too! BilCat (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Common issue, I suppose, especially when the dog was named after a brand of beer . - Ahunt (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

And now for something completely different!Edit

See gem! BilCat (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

  - reads like a travel destination advertisement! - Ahunt (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Yup. Or the plot of a Hallmark Channel romcom. Filmed in Vancouver, BC, of course. BilCat (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
...over a glass of wine... - Ahunt (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I didn't think it could worse, but I was wrong! BilCat (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
If there is one lesson I have learned in life it is "it can always be worse". - Ahunt (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Unrelated, but definitely different: This. BilCat (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I would take that as a sign of success - your work is having an impact! - Ahunt (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I do. Obviously they were reading my user page, but it's odd they think that defines my work here! I barely dabble on sports articles, compared to what I do in aviation and military articles. And do they really think I conceived the Dihydrogen monoxide parody or wrote the article? Odd. I think it's hilarious, and a good parody of our culture's overreaction to anything perceived as "dangerous". And all of those dangers of water are absolutely real. If water were discovered today, the FDA would ban it! BilCat (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
This is the 21st century: relevance is irrelevant. - Ahunt (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
And the irrelevant is relevant! Our pop culture articles are far more read than anything else. BilCat (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Yeah I know, check the page hits on Pokemon articles like on the graph at Talk:Pokémon, 4,000 page views a day! - Ahunt (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Top_25_Report is you really want to be depressed. At least 20 are sports, film, or other pap-culture items. Very sad. BilCat (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
At least the list is topped with a historical event and has some other history articles among the trove of pop culture items... - Ahunt (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm somewhat surprised they were there, but it is a well-publicized holiday now, so a type of pop-culture event in that. Anyway, I've had some users harassing me on my talk page in the last hour, so feel free to revert if necessary. Thanks as always. (Way past my bedtime!) BilCat (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Ah yes, I saw that! Well hope you get some sleep. - Ahunt (talk) 11:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I definitely should have went offline a little earlier than I did! Sometimes I get too tired to realize how tired I am. It's not an excuse for my own behavior, just a realization that tired and cranky don't make my editing any better! BilCat (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
See here. BilCat (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
The paranoiac in me wonders if that H2O parody edit is somehow connected to my later issues. :) BilCat (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Dehydration? - Ahunt (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of weird edits, this is obviously just spamming, but a browser with secure DNA is intriguing! - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

What does "secure DNA" mean? BilCat (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I have no idea! It doesn't make my DNA feel secure! - Ahunt (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
LOL! BilCat (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Don’t you love the way the word “forced” is used when some incompetent flight crew find themselves running out of fuel or lost and making an unplanned, undignified landing? “The aircraft ran out of fuel and the Captain was forced to land on the racecourse etc.” The Captain was entirely innocent and it was all the fault of who, or what, forced him to do it! Dolphin (t) 01:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of how people in certain fields misuse terms. As in "secure DNA", which must have started when Algore c!aimed he invented the internet and referred to an "information superhighway"! Also I tried to watch the movie based on the racecourse incident, but had to give up. My first clue it would bear no resemblance to the real story should have been the opening caption, "Kind of inspired by a true story", which then proceeded to devolve into a showcase of juvenile delinquents running amok. They then had this pilot hiding from the police. I don't know if he was a drug smuggler or something, because I bailed out then. Independent films! BilCat (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Lord of the Rings was based on a true story... - Ahunt (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Speaking of misusing words, Comcast now has "Supersonic Wi-Fi". We finally dumped them in March, and I haven't missed the world's cheapest yet highly overpriced company! BilCat (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Hmmm: "Supersonic Wi-Fi", so I guess no audio, eh? - Ahunt (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Exactly! We couldn't have afforded the monthly rental on the router anyway. (They charged for practically everything!) BilCat (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Sounds like it is done by "Air Duct Cleaning Services". They call all the time from India. - Ahunt (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Don't get me started on robocalls and outsourced scamming! BilCat (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
It seemed relevant! At home I always answer the phone, "Air Duct Cleaning Services, can I help you?" It makes for short conversations. - Ahunt (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
LOL! Well, I can't tell you how many times our 19-year-old car's ten-year manufacturer's warranty has run out this year alone, as I've lost count! Anyway, sometimes I answer in "German". The scammers never speak German, which is good, because neither do I! BilCat (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Yeah they speak almost no Arabic or French, either. Recently I just said "bleep" until they hung up. It took three bleeps. - Ahunt (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I even tried Iyaric a couple of times! I'm by no means fluent, but they don't understand that either! BilCat (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
On the other hand they do seem to understand clearly when I ask about their sister. I keep hoping to get my number blacklisted. - Ahunt (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


Wondered if you can add anything to this circular Discussion – In short the debate is over aircraft receiving individual entries into a table vs. a single entry (notability issue) as it seems to conflict with aircraft ID's - FOX 52 talk! 04:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I will have a look. - Ahunt (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


Sorry about that mess with archive.today .. it was supposed to do some regular maintenance but archive.today went "soft" down during a period and the bot thought they were dead archive links so it flipped them to Wayback and I didn't notice until today, it was about 50 articles. They should be good now if you see any problems let me know, regards. -- GreenC 18:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here! That would explain the odd bot behaviour. It all looks much better now! - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Search and Rescue pageEdit

Hi, so im seeing you have an issue with the reverts on the SAR page with regards to Cyprus. In your first argument, you said that this is not about politics, well, to be honest, yes it is, as it states in the wiki page for search and rescue it clearly states "International Search and Rescue Advisory Group (INSARAG) is a UN organization that promotes the exchange of information between national urban search and rescue organizations. The duty to render assistance is covered by Article 98 of the UNCLOS.", UNCLOS is something neither Turkey nor the de facto Northern Cyprus have signed [1](Turkey because it choses not to. NC because it isnt even recognized to do so), that aside, UNCLOS is the law which in essence defines the law of the territorial sea.[2] [3] I have already stated that Turkey and Northern Cyprus have not signed so I wont go into that part any further. Having said that, the only legal and recognized authority that can conduct search and rescue operations within Cyprus and its FIR, are Republic of Cyprus authorities themselves as also stated in the mission of the JRCC itself http://www.mod.gov.cy/mod/CJRCC.nsf/cjrcc01_en/cjrcc01_en?OpenDocument "The mission of JRCC is to coordinate, control and direct the SAR operations, aiming the timely detection and rescue of persons in distress as a result of air or naval accidents, within its Search and Rescue Region of responsibility, which coincides with Nicosia FIR." Whether Northern Cyprus has the capabilities to do search and rescue operations itself is irrelevant as it is not a legally recognized body (By Cyprus or the UN), nor is it a signatory of the UNCLOS agreement, thus, it should not be there. And yes, since youre putting Northern Cyprus into the Cyprus category, politics can be very much included, even without, with the same logic you applied there, youll see that even the taliban and to some extent isis, also has the capabilities to do search and rescue operations, I dont see them on the search and rescue page (And rightly so), adding de facto Northern Cyprus just opens up a whole new (And legal), can of beans and to be quite honest, is a double standard. Manemjeff (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


You are on the wrong page here, you need to make your case on the article talk page where other editors can participate and not on my talk paged here. - Ahunt (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Youre the only person who has had an issue with this thus im bringing it to you, nobody else has had this issue, if someone else has the issue by all means I will put it there, for now, please respond to what I have said. Manemjeff (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
You need to give other editors the opportunity to discuss this and start a discussion on the talk page. As per WP:BRD you made an edit, it was reverted and you chose to edit war it rather than discuss on the article talk page. You need to take it there now and gain a consensus for your proposed changes. - Ahunt (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
FYI, this is the sock of a banned user. If any new accounts show up making similar arguments, feel free to ping me. Girth Summit (blether) 10:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Super, thank you for that revelation, that makes life easier. Certainly seems to be into WP:Nationalist editing. - Ahunt (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Not surprised. BilCat (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Seeking input on suggested edits for Google SpacesEdit

Hi Adam, I hope all is well. I know you contribute to quite a few articles on Google products, so I wanted to reach out about some edits I suggested to the article on Google Spaces. I also like to think that you understand me to be a good-faith paid contributor and will give my suggestions a fair look. Thanks in advance for your help. Here's some background as this is a little complicated.

Google Spaces was an app that existed for less than a year between 2016 and 2017. The article is quite short.

Google recently promoted the Google Chat feature called Rooms, gave it upgraded functionality (similar to what the 2016 Spaces did) and changed the name to Spaces.

My contention is that it is less confusing for users to have the Google Spaces article updated the explain this as a relaunch of the same, if updated, product. The other approach is to update the section of the Google Chat article with info about the change from Rooms to Spaces and let the Google Spaces article remain solely about the 2016-2017 product. I prefer the first option, but I can see the reasoning for both.

I requested an edit to the Google Spaces article and the reviewer saw no problems with the content and sources, but thought the content should go into the Google Chat article. I’m more than willing to stand by the consensus, but wanted to have a few more people weigh in before I assumed a consensus in any direction. Do you think you can take a look and let me know what you think? Any help would be appreciated. SBCornelius (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. To be honest I have found negotiating the process of COI edits on Wikipedia, especially on subjects I am not familiar with, has become so time consuming that I have just stopped taking that on, as it was preventing a lot of other work on the encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
@Ahunt Thanks for getting back to me and I can see how you could be flooded with such requests. SBCornelius (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

A Ships Barnstar for youEdit

  The Ships Barnstar
Thanks for your tireless and very valuable contribution to WP:SAIL.; simon (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I am glad that you think my contributions have been of value! - Ahunt (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

International EnglishEdit

With the rise of International Englishes as standard English variants, how long will it be till we have to accept "aircrafts" as correct English? BilCat (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Death is too kind a fate. - Ahunt (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
LOL! BilCat (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit review 2Edit

Hi Adam, am I being too picky with this series of reverts ending here? If yes, feel free to revert me, if the editor hasn't already. Thanks BilCat (talk) 04:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you on that point. We do see experienced editors adding "things that they heard but can't find refs for" and then tagging it, but it is not a good practice. I always find the ref first. WP:V quotes Jimmy Wales "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." - Ahunt (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks again. BilCat (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
  - Ahunt (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
It didn't come back, so that's good! BilCat (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
We'll take that! - Ahunt (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


Hi A. The article Coning is relatively new. It appears to me to display a lot of enthusiasm but a lesser amount of expertise. Would you be so kind as to have a look at it and let me know your first impression? Many thanks. Dolphin (t) 12:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Pre-coning rotor blade design visible on these Bell 205s
Thanks for your note here. In looking at that article I would say it has two issues. First that it only tells half the story on the subject of helicopter rotor blade coning. In fact many helicopter designs, like the UH-1 for instance, have "pre-coned" rotor blades which account for this effect in the blade design. In other words they are not manufactured "flat", but curved to reduce this effect, so that in flight they are more flat and less coned (see photo). The other issue is that this is not a descrete subject that needs its own article, and in fact doing so leaves it with very little context. It really should be merged into Helicopter rotor and in fact there is the beginnings of discussion of it at Helicopter rotor#Semirigid. I hope that helps? - Ahunt (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks very much! I understand your position. Dolphin (t) 22:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh, good. Glad it at least makes sense and may be of some value! - Ahunt (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I have challenged some of the structural elements of the article (which is only a stub.) See Talk:Coning#What is it? Dolphin (t) 11:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I think you have asked all the right questions there. I'm keeping an eye on it as the article and talk page discussion progresses. - Ahunt (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Automatic reflist columningEdit

Hey, thanks for the heads up—I'm glad someone finally took care of that. It is automatically set to 30em? Brian B. Smith (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Yes the columning is automatically set to 30 em, see the documentation on that template at Template:Reflist for more info. - Ahunt (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Great Canadian Internet OutageEdit

Were you affected? BilCat (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

LOL, no. Not on Rogers and not on cable! - Ahunt (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
That's good. Rogers must have forgotten to pay some bills or something! We had a thunderstorm come through last night, and we lost our power for a few hours. Even the cell towers seemed affected, so I was offline for a bit. BilCat (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The current guess is that the Rogers outage was caused by the same thing as their last national outage - inadequately tested software updates. - Ahunt (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I resemble that remark. --Dan Harkless (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

It's easy to tell when...Edit

certain movies are on Svengoolie! (If they don't get that show in Canada, you're a very lucky country!) I knew they showed The Deadly Mantis tonight when it was added to the USS Oriskany (CV-34), USS Antietam (CV-36),and Grumman F9F Panther articles around 10pm! BilCat (talk) 02:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Sounds fascinating to entomologists... - Ahunt (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, them low-budget 1950s sci-fi/horror movies always do! BilCat (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Sets aviation back 90 years! - Ahunt (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
At least! BilCat (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps as much as 650 millions years... - Ahunt (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Will return to the optional 's' on "images" for User:Ahunt/PicturesEdit

Thanks for being cool about me messing with your (much-appreciated) userbox, and for not getting mad about the template errors that appeared momentarily on the template page. 😅 I'm on a weird sleep schedule, and it's actually my bedtime now, so I'll return to my attempt to make the 's' on "images" be smart like the one on "videos" when I'm more bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. If you can see what I was doing wrong and feel like fixing it yourself in the meantime, of course feel free. Otherwise, <Ahnuld>"I'll be back."</Ahnuld>. --Dan Harkless (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

No problem! It is not what I would term "mission critical" for Wikipedia! - Ahunt (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Ha, true. OK, I created User:Ahunt/Pictures/sandbox and got my changes working there, and have now installed the new code into the main version. So the 's' on "images" is now also suppressed when the unnamed parameter is set to 1. Thanks again for the inspirational userbox. --Dan Harkless (talk) 10:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I am glad that you found the box worth working on! It has been much modified over time. - Ahunt (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

my edit on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17Edit

Hey Ahunt,

Yesterday I removed the assertion that the airliner was shot down by Russian forces. I found this to be a rather unbalanced statement, especially since this is not repeated anywhere in the article or in the reliable sources, from what I can see. All that seems to be clear is that the weapon was supplied by Russian forces, and that they are being held criminally responsible. Nowhere does it say that the people actually firing the missile were Russian forces, and it would probably be a hard assertion to back up. What makes you think it is appropriate to have such a bold and definite statement on a subject which is still somewhat up in the air? At best, I can see it being appropriate to say something like "members of the Russian military have been criminally charged with murder, for their involvement in supplying and readying the weapon used in the downing" or "investigations of the circumstances have indicated that the weapon was supplied by members of the Russian military."

I might be wrong about this, but if I am wrong, such a bold assertion should probably be backed up by credible sources.

I'm also linking user:Volunteer Marek since his comment was what got me started in the first place. I'm not a terribly experienced editor, so apologies in advance if I'm treading on something that's already been discussed.

Regards, David12345 (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

My talk page is not the appropriate place for this discussion. It needs to be taken up on Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 where other editors watching the article can participate. - Ahunt (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Twenty-six pages of talk archives for that article?? Wow! BilCat (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
See WP:NAT for why. - Ahunt (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I had absolutely no doubt of that! I still remember the Putinbots trying to change the ceiling of the Su-25 to imply it could have shot down the airliner! BilCat (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Yep, much of that sort of thing. - Ahunt (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Of course, I'll take it there.
David12345 (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
  - Ahunt (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Limited serviceEdit

Our limited service IP also made this edit to the MD-11 article. In the MD-11's case, 116 out of 200 built are in use as cargoliners. How is 58% considered "limited service"?? Do these people think all a cargoliner does is carry one little package once a year or something? Weird. BilCat (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Very odd, indeed... - Ahunt (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
And 37% of the 747-400s built isn't "limited service" either. BilCat (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I adjudged not! - Ahunt (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I noticed. I wasn't going to comment at all, but when I saw the MD-11 edit, I couldn't resist! BilCat (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Well two data points is a trend in my books! - Ahunt (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Odd wordingEdit

Hi Adam, see this edit. It seems a bit too politically pointed, and certainly out of context, especially considering the company was a major defense contracts. Most of the waste was probably due to the government cancelling large contracts through no fault of AvCan, the CF-105 being the most notorious example of that. I'm tempted to remove it, but wanted a second opinion. I'd also like to know if the source was an editorial or op-ed, as that's important to put source in context. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I actually looked at the same edit when it came up. It does seem too political, non-neutral and too close to "opinion". The source is unclear and not easy to check, looks like a 60 year old newspaper. I think it would be quite justifiable removing it. - Ahunt (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Done. (With some shameless cribbing of your comments!) BilCat (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
If he feels it needs to be in that we ought to have a talk page discussion that includes being able to scrutinize that ref a bit better, if if only via quotes. - Ahunt (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I concur. BilCat (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Seems a bit obscure to quote a 63-year-old piece from a paper that's been defunct for over 40 years. And something on page six seems like an op-ed, at least it would be in a modern US newspaper. BilCat (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
At very least it needs some detail and context... - Ahunt (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Yup. BilCat (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Another Huh?Edit

See this gem. BilCat (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Very odd and very wrong! - Ahunt (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
That's what I thought! BilCat (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
  - Ahunt (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
It must have lost quite a lot in translation from the original Bulgarian. Since you often edit computer-related articles, see here. I'm assuming the initial IP from Bulgaria is theirs also. BilCat (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
It seems Bulgarian Wikipedia might really, really benefit from their involvement.... - Ahunt (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Unless the reason they're here is because the were blocked there! BilCat (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Which is, as we both know from experience, often the case. - Ahunt (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Yup. BilCat (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Link spam at One DesignEdit

I see that you revereted my removal of refs at One-Design. If you check out the rootpage of this site at https://wilkessail.net/default.html , it is clearly an advert for a book and the author shares the identical name with the person adding these links. This is clearly WP:COI and thus link spam. Hence the removal. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   22:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The refs you removed have nothing to do with any book so it is not linkspam. Please read the actual refs. The website itself is billed as a race results archive. If you have further discussion on this subject I suggest you take it to the article talk page so that other editors can participate. - Ahunt (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Flour seating seater?Edit

What's that?? LOL! BilCat (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

It was one of these. - Ahunt (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I know. I make plenty myself, but that one begged to be commented on! I'm trying to think of a joke comment that fits it, but haven't come up with one yet. BilCat (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
  One day I will learn to type! - Ahunt (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Dont wory ablout it, I nevr wil. :) BilCat (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


Does this edit need or deserve a response? I'm still trying to decide if I should take it seriously, ignore it, or delete it. Any thoughts? BilCat (talk) 04:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Pretty close to trolling, isn't it? That said that engine article should be able to be expanded with details for each model, using the type certificate data sheet. - Ahunt (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I am going to see what can be done to expand and fix that article here this afternoon! - Ahunt (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Yup, hard to tell what their motive is. AGF, it's also possible they didn't understand that the GO-435 is a variant of the O-435. Thanks for adding the information. It certainly needed to be done, and was beyond my ability to do easily, so I appreciate you taking it on. BilCat (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
LOL, I have one TCDS incorporated, only three more to go. It is a bit painstaking! I should have it done in another hour or two, or three... - Ahunt (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks again. We all do what we can, and somehow it works! BilCat (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I've actually seen a number of IP users mention that they have donated, or at least considered donating, to Wikipedia. I wonder how much the WMF takes in like that. I've been on Wikipedia 16 years and a few weeks, and I've never donated! But my income is limited, and I also won't donate as long as open editing is permitted on English Wikipedia. BilCat (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Still working on that article, but slowly getting there. I'll leave a note here when I am done. Last thing I heard the WMF was flush with cash, so I donate to causes that need the money more! - Ahunt (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I should say I've never donated money. My contributions list will show I've donated way too much of my time! BilCat (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Time = money! - Ahunt (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I left a good faith response on the talk page. We'll see what happens. BilCat (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Your comment was less sarcastic than mine was going to be! - Ahunt (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Okay all   Done at Lycoming O-435. Please do have a look and see if it looks correct! - Ahunt (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

International 14 Wikipedia entry. I’m slightly bemused by your editing out the class list.Edit

This was originally complied and then published in 1989 by the class (the International 14, 1928-1989, handbook and history) and therefore completely attributable. It is of high interest to those interested in the class, but as the book is now out of print, it would be very useful to have an updated list on a Wikipedia page for ongoing reference and research.

In terms of entries, there are approx 1500 boats that have been registered and I propose to build this up over the coming months. My email address is [email protected] Thank you (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. A list of all the International 14s in existence is non-encyclopedic information and does not belong on Wikipedia. Basically a list of non-notable boats is non-notable. WP:TRIVIA explains: Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information and more specifically the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which says, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information ... merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. A list like you are proposing belongs on the class club website or some fan website, not in an encyclopedia. If you really want to compile a list like that, I would suggest you start your own website or blog to host it, or offer it to the International 14 Class Association. - Ahunt (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled about why you reinstated the "150I" subsection in Cessna 150?Edit

I had removed that section because it seemed to be merely discussing why the supposed "150I" variant didn't exist. I would think differently if it had been a version proposed by Cessna and then canceled, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Hence I thought it would be better to include a remark about the skip under the 150J variant, so that's what I did.

Unfortunately, I don't have full access to the source cited for that section, only what I can turn up from a Google Books "snippet view" search, but when I search for "150I" in that book, I get no hits at all, which implies it isn't actually present anywhere in the text. Neither do I get any hits for "India". Does that source actually say anything about a "150I"?

Further worries... I myself have become increasingly concerned about my current stream of edits; the amount of text and detail has grown larger than I anticipated when I started. (In retrospect, I should have made my own draft.) I would still like to bring the K, L, and M versions up to the same consistent standard, though. That done, I figure some pruning and perhaps spinning off much of this material into a "variants" article might be more appropriate.

And of course this all needs to be cited a lot better. I've been working largely from Cessna marketing materials, owner's and service manuals, and articles from Flying magazine. I'm aware this isn't ideal; it makes citing troublesome and leaves me open to an "original research" charge.

Looking back at the article's history, I now see that I've been stepping on a lot of your own work. Didn't realize that when I started, and I'm sorry about that.

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. It's not my article, I just added the model summaries some time ago. If I remember correctly there were questions about the missing C-150I model, "where was it?" Clarke's book spells out all the models and all the yearly changes (although it is more succinct on that than our article is now). His list of specs for each model omits the "I" model because it doesn't exist. If I recall, that was all our entry originally said on that, (that is was omitted) but it was embellished over time. Feel free to cut it back down to "C150I Omitted", or remove it again, if you like. As far as the rest of your new additions go, it would be good to make them more compact and they do need referencing. It is much easier to reference them as you go, rather than try to remember where you got each piece of information from later. There is no problem citing marketing material, etc, although Clark's book, as originally cited, details the significant changes for each year. - Ahunt (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Too many satire sites popping upEdit

See Talk:Boom Overture#No Mesa - for the record, it's satire!. I tried not to lay it on too thick in case the person who added it wasn't aware it was a satire site. BilCat (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Well if the Onion can fool the North Korean government... - Ahunt (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Hoggardhigh activeEdit

User:Hoggardhigh socks are active again: User:, User: Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, that looks like him back again. He does get points for persistence, but over this falls under "get a better hobby". - Ahunt (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Falkon 22.08.1 releaseEdit

I have received the newest Falkon release through regular updates from the stable repositories of my distro and in Help --> About Falkon it clearly says "Application version 22.08.1". The official changelog also mentions 22.08: https://github.com/KDE/falkon/blob/master/CHANGELOG And the changelog only makes note of stable releases. Also, the official KDE apps page also says "Releases: 22.08.1": https://apps.kde.org/falkon/ And even the official KDE announcements site, where the stable release of 22.08.1 was officially announced (https://kde.org/announcements/gear/22.08.1/), points to the 22.08.1 release page which contains Falkon 22.08.1: https://kde.org/info/releases-22.08.1/ The download URL even mentions stable: http://download.kde.org/stable/release-service/22.08.1/src/falkon-22.08.1.tar.xz

So how is it only a "commit" then? Vistaus (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The ref you cited was only a commit. The official website says Current version: 3.2.0 (released 31 January 2022), so if a new version is available where is it? If you want to cite one of those other refs then go ahead, but readers may ask why the official website disagrees. - Ahunt (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
It's part of KDE Gear now, so announcements are only made on the KDE website now, which I pointed to in one of the links above.
Sure, readers may be confused, but readers that use it will also be confused if they read that 3.2.0 is the newest version even though they received 22.08.1 (along with the rest of KDE Gear) through their update manager.
I'll make note of the KDE Gear inclusion so that readers won't get confused. Vistaus (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Well fine, then cite that. It also means the official website has basically been abandoned. If you have any contacts at KDE, perhaps you can suggest they redirect it or similar, to avoid confusion. - Ahunt (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Jet engine horse powerEdit

Hi Adam, see Talk:Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593#Horse power. I know jet engines are measured in terms of thrust, not power, as its power is variable depending on several factors, but I wouldn't know where to start to answer this question, or if I should even try if I could. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I think Dophin51 answered that one pretty well. More could be said but I think that covers it. Basically "no". - Ahunt (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I saw his answer also, and thanks for looking it over. BilCat (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  - Ahunt (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I love aviation and aircraft, but I never studied aerodynamics at any level. So while I have a very basic knowledge, courtesy of years of reading books by Bill Gunston, Mike Spick, et al, most of it is far over my head. BilCat (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
No problem ask away any time! - Ahunt (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

perusing the chaos of the background sailing itemsEdit

one feels like wandering into kurt vonnegut novels... there are so many articles with sailing and country in the title but nowhere on the talk page it is ridiculous...

but the really annoying restriction is the tagging of motorboat manufacturers in the goood ole USA who have yacht in their company name but show no sign of actually building them... JarrahTree 15:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Life is nothing, if not complex. - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Balzer radial for Automobile in 1894Edit

Hello Ahunt!

This is the first Radial engine, the Balzer car from 1894: https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/639640/view/balzer-automobile

Can you correct or expand the radial engine article with this info?

Thank you!--Peddigsten (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Balzer's 1894 engine was a rotary engine, not a radial engine, so I've removed your addition to the latter article. Also, photos can't be used as sources in most cases, and a patent application can't be used to substantiate a claim that something is a "first". Sorry. BilCat (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I think Bill's comment above covered most of the bases on this issue. The only thing I would add is that a patent application doesn't even mean someone built the item in question, just that they filled out a patent application form and provided some drawings. They might have made one or not. - Ahunt (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Exactly. Also, radial and rotary engines are often confused with each other, especially as Wankel engines also commonly known as rotary engines too. It's an easy distinction to miss, but Balzer's engine was what is called a rotary, not a radial. BilCat (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, looks similar, works differently! - Ahunt (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Hopefully User:Peddigsten will see all this. They are apparently offline now. BilCat (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

As I can see both rotary and radial engines were invented by Balzer. His 1894 car had the first ever rotary engine, his 1896 motorcycle had the first ever radial engine.--Peddigsten (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Adam, see Talk:Radial engine#Patents and first publications are the only real sources in science and technology. I think it's related to this discussion. BilCat (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks - that is probably the place to take this discussion so more people can participate. - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Red links are okay in NavboxesEdit

You recently reverted my addition of the 14 and 15 to the Template:Melges_Performance_Sailboats Navbox on the grounds that the target articles need to already exist. Apparently the community disagrees. To quote the Essay on Navboxes, "It is acceptable to include some red links in a navbox that may become future articles, and this is actually encouraged, since it lets others know what articles are yet to be created."

In this particular instance, the 15 really does deserve an article, and this was my way to nudge that along. In a short space of time, it has outsold the Melges 17, regattas are drawing good turnouts, and fleets are sprouting up beyond the traditional Melges scow country of the Midwest. I have no interest in getting into an edit war, so I won't undo your revert. But will you? Paulgush (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll start out by noted that is an essay you cited, not a policy. I would say feel free to put the links in, but only if you intend to write the articles in the next few days or so, otherwise there is almost no chance that they will "become future articles". The main value of navigation boxes is "navigation" and users can't use a navigation box to navigate to articles that don't exist. Adding red-links that are not at least shortly going to be turned into articles is just needless clutter. - Ahunt (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) In most cases, I support red links in navboxes. I've been inspired on several occasions to create an article, or finish up a draft article, by a red link in a navbox. Red links are "forbidden" in See also sections, so pretty much the only place left for red links is a navbox. I do use them regularly for navigation, as I hate categories, and fine them worse than useless in most situations. (Not to mention categories on Commons, which is an absolute mess!) Over the years, I've been one of the major creators of aircraft/aeroengine manufacturer navboxes, and I stongly believe these navboxes have resulted in the creztion of more articles in these areas. One reason is that these navboxes are on every relevant manufacturer and product page, and so are visible to every reader of those articles (in web view, at least). Because of that, I believe red links in navboxes are more valuable than a list of products in the manufacturers article due to being so widespread. However, there are probably far more different types of boats than aircraft, so sheer numbers would mean there are a lot of minor boats out there that would be clutter in a manufacturer's navbox. (Forgive the rant, but I couldn't continue to let this one go.) BilCat (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
The OP actually wrote the Melges 15 article as a very short stub, but I extended it this morning into a proper article. He also added the Melges 14 redlink back into the nav box, so I have dropped other plans I had and will go and write it later today. - Ahunt (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  Done - Ahunt (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
It seems my opinion on the matter is the minority one. It'll probably be in mainspace by tomorrow anyway, so all I'll have to do is revert. I guess the majority of Wikipedians think 6.55 million articles is enough. Red links were much more tolerable when we only had 1.5 million articles! BilCat (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
LOL, well there are still more articles to write. I have about 7,000 more boat class articles queued! In the case of Melges Performance Sailboats I decided to drop everything and finish the last boat to do there and then tackle the three existing articles that need scratch rewrites. Hopefully I'll have them done in a few days here. Unfortunately my writing about sailboats will be interrupted today, by gaving to go actually sailing ...- Ahunt (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Just to close out this thread, you can note that all the missing Melges Performance Sailboats articles have now been written and all the existing ones have been re-written from scratch, so I think this is now all   Fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for welcoming me...Edit

... and deleting my edit.

I had looked into the correct way of doing things, and came back to fix it.

To be honest, I am not going to waste any more time.


Eric Eric05Bee (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. We don't use external links in article text as per WP:EL as it is spammy. In the case of Kiwi browser the only way to fix that would be to write the article on the browser and then link it there. In the case of Chromium derivatives it is trivially easy to take the source code and create a new browser by just rebranding it and hundreds of people have done just that. These derivatives have usually not been written up in third party publications, like tech media magazines, and so do not meet our notability standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia. We do have lots of people try to include their own Chromium-based browser projects in the Chromium article for promotional purposes, though. - Ahunt (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
"lots of people try to include their own Chromium-based browser projects"
Not in my case.
I think it is notable as the only Android browser to use Chrome extensions. If not now, then soon, hopefully!
But yes, it does still seem to be a single-person project, not even his full-time job.
An impressive achievement that deserves to succeed, IMO.
It strikes me there is a circular 'catch 22' argument with:
If it doesn't already have a Wiki page it's not notable.
It has to be notable before you can create its page.
Ossification by design as a Wikipedia policy?
Like the UK actors' trade union 'Equity card'.
There is the other catch-22 of trying to get market share, with no marketing budget or publicity.
I give up ... for now. Might volunteer to help Kiwi dev or documentation or testing ...
Eric Eric05Bee (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
It is actually pretty simple and all explained at WP:N. If the browser has been written up in "multiple independent third party references" then it meets the requirements to have an article about it on Wikipedia. If you can find even two product reviews about it you can write the article on it. Once it has an article on it it can be listed as a notable Chromium derivative. - Ahunt (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

A goat for you!Edit

Thanks for all the work you've done writing sailboat articles. I've been really interested in sailing ever since COVID and you work has made my life a lot easier.

Dr vulpes (💬📝) 06:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. I wasn't sure anyone had noticed, so it is great to hear that you think my work has been more helpful than detrimental. - Ahunt (talk)

New mid-air collision incidentEdit

Hi Adam, at first glance, 2022 Longmont mid-air collision is non-notable, and is certainly too soon. Should we redirect it somewhere, or AFD? BilCat (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, a very common thing totally WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and WP:NOTNEWS. There is almost always nothing new to learn from these accidents, so no changes to anything, etc, no notable people involved. Sure you can send it to WP:AFD if you like or I can. - Ahunt (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Would you please? I'm working on updating another article at the moment, and am being distracted enough by football! Thanks. BilCat (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
LOL, sure. Enjoy your football. - Ahunt (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  Done - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Longmont mid-air collision - Ahunt (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I didn't enjoy it :) But I ended up talking to my sister for two hours on the phone, so thanks again. BilCat (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
LOLz, that sounds more challenging than football or writing AfDs. - Ahunt (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Nah. She lives in the Pacific Northwest, and I haven't seen her in over 3 years. I did enjoy the baseball game I watched before the football game. :) BilCat (talk) 03:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  - Ahunt (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Canadian Armed ForcesEdit

Thanks for trimming that list on Canadian Armed Forces. I was in a hurry, and didn't have time to spend on it. BilCat (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I hope you think I got it right, I was looking at WP:UNDUE. - Ahunt (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
You did. The Queen entry was ridiculously long, and you were right to remove it. Recentism run amok! Look at any article for a sports team, and most of history is devoted to recent events in increasingly nauseating detail. The closer you get to the present, the more insignificant the details. For some teams with very long histories, like some MLB and CFL teams who have been around nearly 150 years, the first century is a few paragraphs, with the last decade being half the article or more. Recentism. BilCat (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
It seems kind of odd that the text on the Queen's funeral was as long as that of the effort in WWII. I would go as far to say that military participation in a funeral like this is strictly ceremonial, common, expected, perfunctory and not notable. The armed forces participated in ceremonies for the funerals of Queen Victoria, George V and VI as well. Are these mentioned? No. - Ahunt (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I totally agree. The only real claim to notability at all is that it hasn't happened in 70 years and that's quite thin. I restored a short version solely to keep the long version from coming back, probably in a worse form! We can probably dump it in 3-4 months with no notice at all. BilCat (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
That sounds like a plan. - Ahunt (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I just removed this gem. I thought it was a recent addition, but it's been in the article since 2015, added by an IP, of course! I only caught it now because some moron had to change Prince Charles to King Charles III! A lot of that going around too. (I had almost hoped he would have chosen another of his names as his regal name. Arthur II would have been a hoot!) BilCat (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Well I am glad that you removed that. Apparently Charles had considered reigning as George VII. - Ahunt (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm glad he didn't. We Americans don't much care for kings named "George"! We had a lot of trouble with the one named III. :) BilCat (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I think a few years ago he was thinking of the two popular kings who carried that name in the 20th century. But he settled on Charles III instead. As long as he does better than Charles I, we in Canada will be happy. - Ahunt (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
LOL. BilCat (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit checkEdit

See here. It should be self-explanatory, but I think the editor misunderstands the concept. On the quite likely chance that I'm the one misunderstanding it, or it's incorrectly expressed in the first place, I didn't revert that edit. (A short, basic explanation of whichever is correct would be appreciated.) Thanks. BilCat (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

In ground effect at 5500 feet - yeah it means on a hill or high elevation. Every helicopter can hover in ground effect at sea level!   Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I figured it was something like that. BilCat (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Are U ...?Edit

"I do not remove personal attacks directed at me from this page. If you spot any, please do not remove them, even if vile, as they speak more against the attacker than against me." and "we don't list each version and all their minute changes. We may list major changes, but needs third party refs to show that this is a notable" - Are you thoroughly *tupid? "Features and use" - a new versions of Audacity added A NEW FEATURES TO THE PROGRAM!!!!! "needs third party refs to show that this is a notable" - you have third party refers!!!!! Did you read changes or you're far too busy of reverting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

As far as the insults you have added above, please read WP:NPA. As far as your article additions: WP:NOTCHANGELOG. You cited first party refs (ie change logs from the project devs themselves). Third part refs would be reviews in magazines, or similar sources, that show that these changes are notable. If you disagree then as per WP:BRD the procedure is to discuss on the talk page to gain a consensus, not to edit war. Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 11:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
1. Edit war is your initiative. 2. "these changes are notable" - YES! These changes are NOT notable. All changes are unnecessary. The next versions of program are unnecessary. Why clutter up the wiki? Reviews in magazines? You meant these paper magazines? See References at the end of Audacity article. See References in other articles on wiki. 3. Get away from me. Thanks! Gootector (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)