User talk:Ahunt/Archive11

2460: 3257:

seating for pilot, co-pilot and up to 18 passengers in three rows across the cabin plus a two-place bench seat on each side of the rotor mast. A non-retractable tubular skid-type or tricycle wheel-type undercarriage may be fitted, and a variety of special mission equipment has been developed and certified to suit the SuperTransport for service with the offshore oil industry. Military transport models have been delivered to Brunei (one), Iraq (45), Peru (11), Thailand (nine) and Venezuela (four). The Model 214ST is being replaced by the Model 230 (see page 230).

2051:

knowledge in depth of that many subjects is not likely and you are actually just dumbing these pages down to your level. A person who is actually focused on a particular subject, is the person who is more likely to be an actual expert on that subject. Your editing is aggressive enough that you are altering the content, not just maintaining the form of the entries. If you are editing 1000 Wiki pages, you are an expert on Wiki from not on a subjects of content. If the Wiki does not have a limit on the number of pages a person can edit, it should establish one. --

2035:

are certainly doing their marketing for them. You have attempted to remove cited text that is critical of the aircraft's noise signature several times now and have been consistently reverted. There is a clear consensus to include this cited text, so any further attempts to remove it will be considered vandalism and you risk being blocked from editing. I would suggest that if you don't want people to think you are a COI editor then you go and work on some other subjects for a while instead of continually adding promotional material to the P.180 article. -

3505:

are lots of very smart guys there. I hope some of them will join to provide the info they are legally able. I quit my job to switch to research in automated theorem proving. That's why I needed Cohen's result. All I can say, you might not imagine how useful are Knowledge's articles about Maths and theoretical Computer Science for a researcher. Paradoxically, in the academic field, Knowledge is not regarded as a reliable source. I told you this just to understand from what perspective I made my edits. However, I don't intend to exercise

3392:. I added the info just because I accidentally arrived at this page. I don't know how soon will I go back there. If you review that page systematically, you might also want to move my edits tagged as needing reference to the talk page, if no further clarification is made after a decent amount of time. I consider the information I provided to be correct, but my way of explaining it may be biased or fallacious. Also, I'm not a native English speaker. I hope that the "citation needed" tag will attract people to work on it and improve it. 2968: 1227: 4699: 3165: 1090: 36: 2551: 2850:

goes I went over your edit history and every entry was to insert links to commercial websites. That is what spamming is, intentional or not. The current template for aircraft specs was decided by consensus at WikiProject Aircraft. It is fairly flexible, but excludes those sorts of specs published in specialized publications, as Knowledge is a general encyclopedia. That is why you will find "wingspan" but not "seat elbow room" or other similar parameters. -

1722: 1182: 4005: 1366: 1513: 3788: 796: 4578: 4346: 2875: 2459: 1741:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 871: 4478:. I noticed quite a few entries where images have already been added to the articles, a few by me, but some by members of aircraft project. The category is too large for me to individually check and apply corrections. Perhaps templates should be re-checked via the same processes as originally. Heads-up - No reply expected. 4517:? To my knowledge we don't normally redirect talk pages of redirects. AFAIK, this practice is only followed in case of overly disputed names (after move wars, POV fork recreation, etc.). Instead we use them to discuss the merits of redirects or even for explaining the rationale behind the redirect's name and existence. — 3234:, so I just wanted to check with you about it insted of deleting it outright. It seems a bit off given that the 214ST is more than double the MTOW of the 230. Any thoughts? Was this perhaps referring to their place in the production/assembly line itself, rather than the product line-up as the text implies? Thanks. 2774:. In the early days of Knowledge we had a lot of "experts" just writing text with edit summaries like "I am an expert, I know this stuff" and then other people removing it with edit summaries like "I taught him everything he knows and he has this all wrong". All of that is why it has to be verifiable. - 270:"Ministry of Defence" is a proper noun and is capitalized, but part of the title, like "defence" is not a proper noun and is not. Similarly "No. 2 Service Flying Training School" is a proper noun and is capitalized, but "service flying training school" is not as it is not the name of a specific unit. - 4251:

located in the ref. I can think of no better way than the way I had it. As wikipedia's foremost purpose is to disseminate information, and EL is getting in the way, could we not ignore WP:EL for the moment? Please revert if you agree, or change to something else if you have a better solution. Thanks,

3742:

The edit I made about the "statistical heuristic" really needs a citation or, at least, some mathematical description. I'm not an experienced editor, but I think that it might have gained enough attention and is still not referenced. I doubt any one will find a reference, so it should be moved to the

3279:

I agree with you that it doesn't make complete sense for the 20 seat 214ST to be replaced by the six-ten seat Bell 230 operationally and the text on the 230 seems to support that, so I can only conclude that it replaced it on the Mirabel production line. I'll adjust the wording in the article to make

2154:

as a reliable reference. That aside, it contains a large number of unverified assumptions that make it even more unreliable. If this information is notable then it will have been quoted or used in a reliable reference, such as a tech media article and can be included in the form of that reference. If

2034:

As far as COI goes your editing record speaks for itself. Your record shows currently that almost all your edits have been related to the P.180 and many of those have been to remove cited criticisms and introduce POV and promotional marketing language. If you are not connected to the company then you

688:

Hi Ahunt, I noticed you deleted "Cloth-wing ultralight aircraft" and indeed I figured that there would be some objection to this category, however I still believe the categorisation (although not recognized by any authority) is still sound and hence I was wondering whether you could place the deleted

3504:

I'm a former programmer employee of a reputable AV company. I'm subject to a non-disclosure agreement. I'm not sure how much of the information I have, is trade secret. I can only provide some tiny, abstract notes. From my experience, the really hardcore programing is done in the AV companies. There

2849:

Thanks for your note. Even with different references cited numbers on what jets rent for is only applicable at one point in time and at one location. It isn't the sort of information we include in aircraft type articles as it just is too time and location dependent to be of value. As far as spamming

1810:

are some of the most useful sources I was able to find through Google and Gbooks. I personally don't believe there's much there to establish the notability, but if there's something there that you're able to find, or a link within of those sites, maybe it might help. I use Arch Linux, and thing a

2645:

I've attempted to clean up the "electric" section, but the rest of this page has a lot of errors. Some of it is a bit comical (ie "drive-belts must not be twisted", adjacent to a picture of the Schleicher drive-train that twists the belt) ! Some it it is a bit crazy, for example the bit I corrected

2127:

The reference you removed from the page for the Linux Kernel on December 2nd was an easily verifiable log of calculations based on a previous reference's numbers adjusted for the present date at that time. It is my opinion that those numbers should not even need another citation beyond the original

1933:

Hi Ahunt....thanks for that distinction on the Commons vs Knowledge. What I'm still not clear on is this business of an original work (i.e. my original photo) of copyrighted material. As far as the Commons goes, how far does a copyright extend? For example, what about a photo of an artwork, say,

310:

These sorts of things do crop up now and then, sometimes Janes has mistakes in it. Continental never built an IO-320, although Lycoming did. Because you indicated that it was a six-cylinder 210 hp engine it has to be a typo of IO-360 as the specs fit. Pretty unlikely to get 210 hp out of a 320 even

3538:

The good thing about Knowledge is that it all relies on references. To add any substantive content you need to add reliable refs, so non-disclosure agreements, security concerns and similar aren’t an issue - the information has to be publicly available to be cited! I would suggest that you open an

3462:

affect marketing strategies and have an impact on algorithm design. I don't know how familiar are you with the subject, but AV companies make efforts to score high in such tests without necessarily correlating with everyday needs. I don't have any reliable source, so I will not make any edit about

3200:

I am glad that you found that article is worthwhile. WikiProject Aircraft is just getting around to creating articles on hang glider aircraft types now and because I have some refs available I have started in on this neglected area. After a recent break to address propeller manufacturers I will be

2741:

OK, should I get one or more of SSA, ASA, or other organizations to publish the material (thus its nominally reviewed and endorsed as expert) ? Though in reality if anyone wanted to publish materials on this topic they would likely ask me to review it... For example the lecture I'm giving Thursday

2066:

Well that is just your opinion, one not shared by anyone else I have encountered on Knowledge. You don't know anything about my expertise. If you are accusing me of vandalizing Knowledge then I suggest you provide some evidence to back that accusation up or else apologize. Also I think you need to

1064:

Nice to hear from you. Glad that you think my inputs are useful. I have been taking photographs of Cavaliers for a long time as they turn up at fly-ins here in Canada now and then. I just needed someone to start the article to allow me to make use of the photos. I have lots more, but just of those

728:

We have had our differences in the past, and who knows what tomorrow will bring... But on the subject of requiring references for the numerous applications of the Rotax 912, I am all with you - you will remember I am not convinced of the relevance of mentioning these applications at all, far worse

1048:

Great pictures! I know I had some old ones I had to scan in, but these are much better. I wasn't sure if I should have merged all the SA series, considering the wide range of configurations, but the aircraft seems to have a common core. This aircraft deserves much more content, as do a lot of the

116:

Glad you found that useful. Adding 30em to the reflist template allows columns to be created based on the reader's browser width, with columns set at 30 em points. That means, since I am using a 1440px wide browser I see three columns, but someone using a more common 1024px wide would see two. It

4655:

I'm not against its recreation (it's plausible, and it was one of previous locations of the article, if I'm not mistaken). Still this name follows the now deprecated convention and should be avoided as such IMO; thus I went through the "What links here" to fix every main namespace use so that it

4250:

Hmmm, I wanted to purvey the information for specific protest locations, at least for the next 24 hours. I thought adding all that info in text to the article or adding text stating "info can be found in this ref" was ungainly. How it is now there is no sign that the details for each protest are

3271:

Notes: The Model 230 is a derivative of the Model 222 which it is intended to replace, production of the latter having ended with 184 built. Two of these were transferred to Bell's Canadian company in 1990 for conversion to prototypes of the Bell Model 230 and the first of these flew at Mirabel,

3256:

Notes: Developed originally for Iran and flown as a prototype for the first time in February 1977, the Model 214ST is a significantly improved derivative of the Model 214B BigLifter, customer deliveries having commenced early in 1982. The current production version has dual controls and standard

2665:

and just plain wrong stuff (usually the same thing) is also easy, just remove and indicate as clearly as you can in the edit summary why. You have added a bunch of uncited new material with the edit summary "I have not provided extensive citations though these points will be agreed completely by

2685:

I have given multiple presentations on this topic (Soaring Society of America conventions, EAA conventions, etc) as I am a recognized expert in this field. Should I put the slide decks from some of these presentations on my web site and cite that ? Unfortunately the slides don't include all the

4266:

The problem is that Knowledge is an encyclopedia, it is not a site to advertise protests or gain support for causes, no matter how important or altruistic they are or anything else, which is one reason that external links are not allowed in article text. Another reason is that it would violate

1949:

Hi Bart, thanks for the comment. I am no copyright lawyer but my understanding is that a photo of a copyrighted work, such as a photo of a still-copyrighted painting is copyright the original painter, not the photographer. If you take a photo of a street scene and the painting is visible just

2050:

Promotional sounding language creeps in on occasion, and you are welcome to edit that out. The P180 happens to be my interest at the moment. Editing the Wiki is not. If you are editing more than say, 100 pages, I suspect that it is you who are, in effect, vandalizing those pages. Your actual

117:

makes the number of ref columns customized to the browser width and thus uses screen space most judiciously. It only works on Gecko and Webkit-based browsers, so not Internet Explorer, of course. IE users should just see one column, but I use Linux so can't test that. It is all explained at

3939:"This infobox is used for the Lead image of aviation-related articles, and to provide a place for a title heading. It is designed to provide some visual compatibility with the {{Infobox Aircraft}}, WPAIR's primary infobox." It is used in hundreds of article like this one, for instance: 3634:

Thank you for your official "Welcome" message. About the bug: clear all your history and than visit www.wikipedia.org. Type in "antivirus". Do this again but type in "antivirus software". Something similar happens when I visit the page "The Maid Freed From The Gallows" through the link

3433:

articles while looking for the article about Cohen's result. It's said that such a result was not included. But never is too late. About the "statistical algorithm" edit, I doubt anyone will be able to find a reliable source. It might be a trade secret which produces high ranks on the

3225:

article, and I noticed that it is in the same size/weight range as the old Bell 214ST (which had only about 500 lb less MTOW), with the same basic engine type no less! Anyway, while glancing through the 214 article, I noticed this line: "The 214ST was replaced in production by the

2726:. It would be best to find an independent third part source for this, which should be easy if this information is so widely known. Also yes, refs should be repeated so that each paragraph is cited to something at least, otherwise it isn't clear where the information came from. - 4636:

I did see that! The admin in question seemed to be very zealous in his clean-up, but it looked like more work than it was worth. I tend to think that redirects help readers find articles, so, in general I think they are better to have than not have, but then I'm not an admin. -

1542:

or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our

1824:

Thanks for your note. Personally I am a Debian user, so I have no vested interest in whether this is retained or deleted, but I do want to give the article a fair shake. Let me poke around and see what I can find. Perhaps someone has written a recent review of it? -

4805:

Yeah, I've seen that but owing to me being on a 1-week vacation for the last 7 days, I really haven't been able to edit on WP so the result is somewhat unexpected. Okay, we'll let it go for a year and renominate it when that time comes, shall we? Cheers and best~!

3743:

talk page. I can work on it on the talk page too and other people might not be afraid to tell their subjective opinions. The other unreferenced edits might be subject to consensus, so they may be moved to the talk page or may stay with the tag. What do you think?

4761:

Hello Ahunt, as you may have noticed, I haven't got the time push it through due to family and work commitments and the result is obviously clear. IYO, do you think that his article warrants a place on WP? And if not, what are the options you think are available?

744:

Hi Jan, Nice to hear from you! It is great when we agree on something! This has been discussed before on WikiProject Aircraft and the decision was not add all the footnotes as long as the linked article has them. I did let the challenging editor know that, as per

2192:

content is that people with a expertise or interest in a subject willing to contribute, may not be the best at writing encylopedic style content as well. I appreciate the ability to add shared content, and the editor's who give quality to the content.

1950:

coincidentally in the picture, but is not the subject of the photo then the photographer owns the copyright. A good example would be a close up photo of a company logo vs the logo on a distant store front in a street scene. I hope I got that right. -

1065:

three aircraft, so one of each seemed enough for now, given the short article. The aircraft in the info box was actually built by some friends of mine and is based in Goderich, Ontario. Let me see if I have any refs I can contribute to that article. -

2240:

is a consensus, or if that was just something I incorrectly inferred from certain talk page discussions. Is this use of Linux as opposed to GNU/Linux a Knowledge consensus that can be found somewhere, or am I just making an incorrect assumption? -

2187:

for fixes, if bot's have not already completed the task. I recognize poor spelling, and bad copyedit lessen the credibility of an article, but the articles are also living documents that will be peer reviewed and improved up to FA class. A con of

1811:

free (as in FSF's definition) version is awesome, I just personally don't think the distro (from what I was able to find, and what is current in the article) meets Knowledge's requirements, but if you're able to find something, that'd be great. -

4031:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

456:

U.S. images should be just fine - most of them are U.S. government pix. In all cases, though, here and otherwise, the thing to do is to "trust, but verify" - if it doesn't pass the smell test, don't move blithely on because "they said so"! -

4243: 3806:. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see 1863:"Further good news is that once your distro is listed on DistroWatch, it will apparently be also accepted for listing on Knowledge". I guess they think they are a reliable source, but that sort of smugness is not usually convincing! - 3066:

That is curious! The 2003/04 guide has listings for both companies and doesn't indicate any relationship there. Perhaps the school turned production over to Europe Sails, or perhaps it was a contracted design in the first place? -

1534:

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

4304: 290:

Evening Ahunt: You may well be right: I don't know these engines well but I was surprised when it redlinked. It is, though, what Janes's says. I've had a quick look for web sites that give the engine type and have only found

4300: 2649:

Anyway, last time I tried to clean up a page I ended up having edits removed by those with more conviction than knowledge. How do I avoid that ? I'd like to improve the material but I don't want to just waste my time...

2889:

For launching an astonishing 56 articles in January, almost half of the record 120 in the month. Tremendous! And for somehow finding time amongst all that to edit many of the other new article, continuously tidying and

3539:

account - it sounds like you have lots of value to contribute and then your contributions will all be in pone place. I started with some spelling fixes in 2005 and now seven years later I am still here contributing! -

2833:

Hi - thanks for the friendly e-mail, it is not my intention to spam, but can see why it looks like it - will reference without the linking. Out of interest can I recommend additions to the specifications for the jets?

4035:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

4750: 2183:, software licensing, and security choices, not all editors have access to these features at all terminals they edit from. In my case, when spell check is available, I go back through articles I have created 367:] are OK for uploading to to WP? Looks so at first sight, but I wondered if there had been a discusion somewhere that I'd missed. I was really looking for Crown Copyright stuff but have not found those yet. 295:, which also says IO-320. Mind, they might have got it from JAWA. Might be hard to tie it down. I guess WP policy would say follow the source, even if you are sure it's wrong! I'll poke around a bit more. 4780: 2179:

Thanks for the advice on browser selection. I agree that all browsers should have spelling correction, (with aviation terms!). It should also be a feature put into the wikipedia editing tools. Due to

818: 810: 4402:

that when someone spams terms across Knowledge articles that have been decided by very long standing community consensus to be POV spam that reverting them as spam is hardly a personal attack. -

414:

I guess that answers that (thanks Nigel)! It looks like they have played "fast and loose" with some copyrights at the museum. I think I uploaded one of their images, have to check its status. -

2798:, you might know me as OKelly but I have since changed my username. I'm not really a barnstar-giving-user but I would like to say thanks for your help with the UN related userboxes. So thanks! 2432:

article, but, apart from the fact that mine has the old-style (grey metal symbols on black metal) numberplates, and does not have those rather modern-looking overtaking mirrors on the doors,

2686:

detail material. Also, you've added "citation needed" for information already available in existing citations (ie Lange web site) - should I just post a duplicate citation in these cases ?

3438:, thus making good publicity. The other edits are based more on common sense and are subject to consensus. You might want to review them and participate in the establishment of consensus. 3568:. All I can say, history is disabled for my browser. I didn't look further if it happens just to my system. But if there is a difference on your system too, it might be a Knowledge bug. 2296:

Thanks for adding the translation; with my few words of German I'd guessed it meant "wind play" or something similar and not bothered to look in the dictionary. A little knowledge ... !

4928:. I failed to identify the claims that are exclusive to lead and not supported in the rest of article, so I removed the tag. Could you please help me identify the problematic claim? — 4783:

and the result was "keep" there really isn't much that can be done to delete it at this point other than wait a year or so and then re-nominate it, if it is justified at that point. -

2318:! Normally refs are not repeated as external links unless there is a reason for it, like using the manufacturer as a ref and as the "official website" as well. Let me have a look. - 581: 4260: 3974: 1049:

early homebuilt's. I'll add more as I find material that can be cited. Thanks for all the cleanup on my stub articles, It's good to have a second set of eyes check the new stuff.

705: 428:

My gut feeling is that they are probably OK for US images as I suspect that is what they are checking against - but non-US photos should be taken with a greater degree of caution.

139:

That makes perfect sense. I use Internet Explorer so that explains why I see no change. I will return to some of my other creations and make the same adjustment. Many thanks.

4770: 3458:

Thank you for taking the time and correcting my spelling errors. It's nice to collaborate with you. By the way, it might be a good idea to include info about how systems like

195:

Just as aside, on my 1440x900 screen, three columns often results in a reference being "split" between columns - and thus being ghastly in appearance - whereas two doesn't. -

2155:

it hasn't then that is pretty much proof that the numbers are not regarded as accurate by any reliable sources. In adding information to Knowledge we have to comply with the

1665: 689:

article on my userspace (/KVDP) so that I can post the article somewhere else (ie Appropedia), and if it becomes good enough (referenced, ...) I can then perhaps repost it.

4056: 473:

More generally, have I got it right that a pre-1957 Crown Copyright photo is OK for direct copying, but the same image in a book is only OK if the book was published : -->

1661: 3936: 2443:

userboxes for me earlier this month, you very kindly offered to help me again. I would be thrilled if you were to make one indicating that same message as shown on the

1141: 325:

Agree with these points and content with you edit. I guess if we made a note in the article about Jane's error someone would cry OR, so sleeping dogs and all that ...

4216: 610:

For now the damage was inflicted: new section "System requirements" is created. Don't think it'll survive though. Anyway, I would appreciate any input, specifically

3528: 3514: 2670:. I would suggest that if everyone knows that it is right then it should be written down somewhere in an article published somewhere which can be used as a ref. - 2139: 1137: 4292: 1998:

Nigel's answer does not address the comment. (Undid revision 471362470 by Stodieck (talk) - no it isn't - describes the nature of the noise of the aircraft)

1103: 2597:

Perfect! Thank you very much. I had not thought that you would have done it today, and, what's more, three hours ago. I am very pleased. With best wishes,

2104:

You have been warned for the last time on your talk page and yet you're still doing the same thing here on another editor's page. My question for you now is:

4286: 3264:

Interestingly enough the entry for that year on the Bell 230, on page 230, doesn't mention the 214ST, but the 1992/93 edition entry on the Bell 230 does say:

592:

I can run though the article and fix the ENGVAR problems right away. I stay away from GA reviews, though, as they usually make articles worse, not better. -

4978: 4130: 3565: 3810:

for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see

339:

That was my thought! We have to use some discretion about even reliable sources, which is why write the encyclopedia by hand instead of via automation! -

1733: 1581: 1404: 1877:

Yeah, I saw that. I noticed that they were careful not to actually say that a DistroWatch listing shows notability, only that it "apparently" does. -

3994: 3821:

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article.

683: 560:

that show that this subject is notable then the tag can be removed and the article retained. If no such refs exist then the article will be deleted. -

49: 1470: 4457: 4393: 1714: 548:

if an article has no references and none can be found it is therefore a non-notable subject and should not have an article about it. Please see also

4334: 3104: 2666:

anyone knowledgable in the field". Actually you didn't provide any refs for this. Anyone can remove that at anytime as it must be referenced as per

2108:

Think carefully your reply here because the next thing that's going to happen to your account will be what you are asking for exactly. Take heed. --

5026: 4362: 4178: 3744: 3718: 3661: 3639: 3576: 2630: 2608: 2588: 2001:

Sorry but there is no COI, I actually think your editing is biased. I do not fly and I have no connect to Piaggio or any related entity. Stodieck

1769: 1604: 4996: 2929: 2516: 1466: 5040: 4411: 4028: 264: 4045: 3100: 255:

Hi. Although you say the names of the various units are not proper nouns, they are in fact names. It's like Ministry of Defence is capitalised.

5060: 519: 250: 4992: 3210: 1641: 704:

I wasn't the person who deleted it as I am not an admin, I just nominated it. Not being an admin I also can't restore it to user space. Check

698: 4756: 4280: 3401: 2714:

You really cant' publish your own stuff and then quote it, even if you are an expert in the field. There are some allowances for this as per

758: 79: 4148: 3532: 3518: 2371: 1575: 468: 236: 206: 3673: 3494: 3472: 3447: 3416: 2799: 2795: 483: 71: 3869: 3548: 2859: 2168: 1637: 3899: 3752: 3647: 3134: 3076: 2783: 2762: 2735: 2706: 2401: 2116: 1693: 1500: 279: 4144: 2718:

if you have been widely published elsewhere, but even then it should be added by someone else really or else it may just get removed as

2367: 2277:

Hey, don't you think that referring to someone as "GNU spammer" just because of two very minor good-faith edits is not right? Thanks. --

1784: 4744: 4425: 3851: 3845: 3730: 3697: 3624: 3588: 3082: 2985: 2353: 2271: 1914: 1884: 1872: 1846: 1834: 1807: 1609: 1452: 1171: 749:, if he insists that I'll have to put them in. Sort of an early Christmas present, as I know what I will be doing over the holidays. - 451: 437: 178: 156: 130: 4970: 4952: 4867: 4814: 4792: 4673: 4646: 4631: 4569: 4555: 4541: 4095:. I added some licencing categories and to Chromium. Chrome is still inconsistent as it has the <Free and open source software: --> 4059:

state that the manufacturer name should be included in an infobox if the title otherwise contains only a model number or is ambiguous.

3865: 3766:

article. I've always had a small difficulty with that function (referencing). Could probably contribute more if I mastered it myself.

3343: 2955: 2299:

BTW, an editor has repeated one of the refs in that article as an external source. Didn't feel quite right to me - what do you think?

2217: 2080: 2044: 1818: 1074: 970:

Thanks for your note, but I don't think I have worked on any of the articles in question as this really isn't my area of expertise. -

920: 671: 645: 623: 409: 395: 383: 5006: 4502: 4475: 4314: 4158: 4124: 4083: 4017: 3879: 3688:, so I guess I can't duplicate it on Iceweasel 10.0.1. What you are seeing could be just Knowledge server lag, that happens often. - 3191: 3149: 3114: 2569: 2381: 1708: 1625: 1480: 1151: 855: 3986: 3964: 3329: 3307: 3289: 1111: 1010: 979: 840: 4895: 4838: 3383: 3371: 3032: 2822: 2679: 1977: 1959: 1548: 1119: 1030: 4237: 3243: 2917: 2345: 2327: 1753: 1213: 717: 423: 348: 334: 320: 3929: 1905:

I thought it was a bit presumptuous! It looks like they are leveraging their own ad sales on the basis of a Knowledge article! -

1447: 738: 3060: 2940: 2640: 902: 4999:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 4726: 4381: 4307:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 4151:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3872:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3107:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2374:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1473:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1144:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 938:

states that the V Australia 777-300ER is now operating for Virgin Australia. Would you help shed some light on this? Thanks, →

57: 5002: 4487: 4310: 4154: 4094:

I have to say it is always a pleasure to see the quality edits you make. You were right about removing <free software: -->

3875: 3110: 2406: 2377: 1790: 1621: 1618:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1476: 1423:

if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the

1147: 786: 442:

Makes me nervous though that they get some of them very wrong. It doesn't inspire confidence about the rest of the images! -

4203: 2661:

page and your recent edits there. Fixing spelling, grammar and bad wording is easy, just go ahead and do it. Getting rid of

2095: 2060: 2021: 964: 3916:

says "the infobox is purely optional". In this case the infobox serves no purpose and does not match similar articles e.g.

3216: 2248: 2229: 2286: 569: 4212: 3904: 3464: 3439: 3393: 2202: 2843: 2143: 2086:

The "odd edit" was an attempt to fix a broken link to a Flying article. Instead of deleting it, I suggest you fix it. --

1560: 1372: 110: 4546:

It was speedy deleted on my request: I thought the lack of talk page would be more informative then the empty one... —

4526: 3811: 3524: 3510: 2135: 1943: 1058: 601: 1737:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 4068: 2758: 2702: 2262:. I hope that helps. It is a lot of reading! In reviewing your edit cited above it looks correct as per consensus. - 1356: 1197: 4109: 4096:

template. As always, depends on how strict the "Free Software" applies (cf Firefox branding). I added some thoughts

4374: 4271:

as it is unbalanced. You are really better off using Facebook, Diaspora or Twitter for that sort of information. -

4183: 3362:

Glad that clarification was helpful! We strive for accuracy, but sometimes even good sources can be a bit vague! -

3249:

Hi Bill, nice to hear from you. I dug up the ref cited, Green 1991, and in total about the 214ST that year it says:

2998: 2923: 3830: 1301: 4445: 3726: 3669: 3584: 2981: 2604: 2512: 2029:

Sorry but I can't answer for other editor's edit summaries, you will have to ask them and see if they will reply.

935: 861: 3407:

Thanks for your note. The tags should prompt someone who knows the subject better than I do to find the refs! -

1312:

you know that edit of mine that you reverted on the cessna 182 article, no sweat, i totally get why you did it.

4469: 4225: 2017: 1443: 1328: 926: 376: 4937: 4532:

I just thought it was odd that it was deleted instead of redirected when there are 12 pages pointing to it. -

1742: 1547:

for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see

1350: 4689: 4453: 4389: 4350: 3775: 3155: 3038: 3017: 2899: 2308: 1080: 527: 502: 4244: 781: 1985: 1657: 1587: 1003: 957: 934:. We have two separate articles for V Australia (now Virgin Australia International) and Virgin Australia. 932: 304: 4560:

Well it is just a redirect to the current talk page, but if it is a problem then have it deleted again. -

1176: 4856: 4599: 4583: 4514: 26: 4957:

Now when dates are explicitly stated and linked in the article's body and Infobox, I think it's OK per

4914: 4441: 2807: 2600: 2508: 2421: 2233: 2223: 1928: 1424: 1410: 723: 575: 382:

Some of the San Diego A&S museum collection's licensing on Flikr have been questioned before - see

4508: 3231: 4988: 4354: 4256: 4021: 2908:

Thanks for that. It helps that we have had terrible skiing weather here in Canada this past month! -

2742:(Electric Gliders at SSA convention) will likely be published on SSA and/or SoaringCafe web sites ? 2174: 1107: 734: 3425:

Maybe, I will work on improving the explanations. You're welcome to review the edits. I visited the

2450:

Obviously, I imagine you may wish to use a different image, should you know of a more suitable one.

4922: 4449: 4399: 4385: 2180: 1615: 1556: 1125: 462: 200: 1219: 4716: 4712: 4611: 4189: 3506: 3468: 3443: 3397: 1539: 1041: 83: 65: 3509:. That's why I welcome your reviews and I hope more smart people will join and review my edits. 4657: 4591: 4050: 2839: 886: 536:

Your characterization of my proposing this article for deletion as "hatred" runs afoul of both

2770:

The key thing is that it has to be published in reliable third party references so that it is

1365: 814:, a project dedicated on improving Knowledge's coverage of flight simulation related articles. 48:

Hey, thanks for the links. I plan to get my references in good order today. Much appreciated.

4089: 3186: 3056: 3044: 2995: 2754: 2698: 2245: 2128:

calculations from 2008 listed and a citation of the new LOC numbers for that point in time.

1881: 1843: 1815: 1377: 508: 260: 53: 4622:

seemed impractical). Don't think I'll bother with maintenance deletions in near future... —

4416:

Calling a contribution spam, and calling a contributor a spammer, are two different things.

4055:

Hi, Ahunt. I dispute your recent edit to this article. Both the template you quote and the

292: 4252: 4208: 3913: 3714: 3657: 3572: 2828: 2746: 2690: 2538: 2237: 2131: 2122: 2005: 1986: 1763: 1544: 1316: 730: 515: 118: 3008:

Thanks. I was looking for something else in the article and skipped right over that :-) --

821:, where you can join the project and see a list of project targets that you can help with. 82:.) I have made the same adjustment to the Reflist of a new article I am working up in my 8: 4943:

It is really the dates in that para that needs refs, otherwise it won't get though GA! -

4723: 4421: 4370: 3826: 3748: 3722: 3665: 3643: 3580: 2974: 2967: 1588:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Multirole_combat_aircraft#Promotion_of_Rafale.2C_you_say_.3F

1552: 1520: 458: 433: 391: 364: 358: 196: 149: 103: 4245:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Robocall_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=481239971

3043:

Not sure how it fits into the big scheme of things but 2004/5 Leisure Aviation says the

1243:

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

4966: 4958: 4933: 4669: 4652: 4627: 4619: 4607: 4551: 4522: 4339: 4097: 3807: 3685: 3612: 3604: 3430: 3389: 3339: 3096: 2936: 2282: 2198: 2091: 2056: 2013: 1799: 1791: 1600: 1505: 1437: 1420: 1398: 1324: 1274: 1054: 898: 667: 619: 1285:

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

5036: 5022: 5013: