Hi Adam, a IP farm has been adding "Perspective tables" (apparently translated from the Italian "Tavole prospettiche") to various articles lately, as seen here. I know I usually call them "3-views" , but I think there's another word/phrase we usually use in articles, and I can't find/remember what it is. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Glad that was helpful. I had followed the whole interaction and thought your points were comprehensible, even if subject to some debate. I thought the response was an over-reaction, but then I have seen that quite often from that one particular editor. - Ahunt (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a good idea not to do that. You will just annoy other editors and, along with the canvassing, increase the chances that the article will get deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aviation Article Inconsistiency in Mentioning the "Worst/Deadliest Aviation Disasters"
Hi, Ahunt. I noticed that you reverted my edit on Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752. While your edit summary makes sense, why, then, do we mention that "Saudi Arabian Flight 163 is the world's deadliest aviation disaster involving a Lockheed L-1011 Tristar" and that "Mexicana Flight 940 is the world's deadliest aviation disaster involving a Boeing 727"? The info that I put in for Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 is true, and I provided a credible source for it as well. Your clarification is greatly appreciated.
I was surprised to see virtually all of the work I did on this page today reversed. You ask for a reference for the change, and I'm happy to provide the documents, but in many cases you have no references cited...but have changed back to incorrect information. Is there any means for us to informally chat regarding this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blattimer (talk • contribs)
Thanks for your note here. This discussion really should happen over at Talk:Ryan Navion so other editors watching that article can participate. The short version is that that is fine to add all that info if you have refs you can cite as per WP:PROVEIT, but the article is current a mess of unsourced (and probably wrong) text. I would prefer we trim everything unsourced first and then you can add your info, with sources, as that will improve the article. I am happy to trim all that and then have you add your sourced info, if you want to go that route. - Ahunt (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I'll admit to being a little chuffed, but I'm working through it. I'll start walking through each aspect to see if we can build a better foundation. Thanks for being more patient with me that I've been with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blattimer (talk • contribs)
Wikipedia is a bit daunting for newcomers these days! Let me clean up the unsourced stuff and then you can put in your text and refs. Let me know if you have any questions. If you need to recover anything you added it is not lost, it is all still in the page history tab! - Ahunt (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adam, hope you're staying cool up there. Summer finally arrived with June down here. Could you look at Grumman sport boat? I know you usually deal with sailboats, but I've no experience with boats of any kind. I'm having it checked for copyvios, and if there are, there might not be any article left. It seems like a notable topic to me, but as written, it's horrible. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, high of 17C (63F) today, so yeah it is cool here. I had a read of it and, yeah, it needs a re-write, all right! Most of the info looks okay, but, indeed may be a copyright vio, need to check the main ref, which is sounds like you are working on. I would suggest if the copyright vios can be cleaned out first, then let's see what is left after and start from there. - Ahunt (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is good, at least. However without any footnotes and mostly a paper ref, it is hard to tell what is referenced there and what is not. - Ahunt (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
regarding your amendments to the Owners Associations section of the Hallberg-Rassy article:
note that there are quite a few other wiki yacht design / construction articles, which have Owners Associations comments and sections. They have been there for years. From memory Oyster Yachts and Moody Yachts come to mind. I am sure their are others.
I believe this type information is very useful and hard to locate. It took me years to track down Hallberg-Rassy Owners Group website, which contains very useful information for assessing and understanding Hallberg-Rassy yachts. I know of quite a few other similar sites, ie Valiant yachts owners group, which contain massive amounts of information, particularly as Valiant yachts are no longer built. The Moody Owners group is the same, the only location where you can view details about previously built Moody yachts, as the offical Moody site does not contain any historical information. However, apart from discusssions in various sailing web forums (ie Cruisers & Sailing Forums) there is very little 3rd party references available. I take it a site like Cruising & Sailing Forum is not an acceptable 3rd party reference?
Plus I actually think it is debatle calling these other sites spam. There is a lot of very useful information being posted on those other pages, particularly the Facebook pages. The trouble is the 3rd party references are very limited and mostly are on Cruising & Sailing type forums.
Thanks for your note here. As far as "other articles do this", see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It just means they need cleaning up too. It doesn't matter how useful they might be, the encyclopedia is not here to promote clubs. If their websites have useful information than they can be used as refs, but just lists of non-notable organizations in manufacturer's articles is spammy and promotional, in particular see WP:NOTADVERTISING. - Ahunt (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did see that and that it was removed. No idea what it was trying to communicate, though. Maybe it is better not to know! - Ahunt (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You'd think Wikipedia would disable the icon set from working, but maybe they can't. It's mostly annoying, and only used by functional illiterates anyway. Like that one. - BilCat (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The unwillingness of people to learn continues to astound me. I've always read encyclopedias to learn what I don't know, and still I read Wikipedia for that reason also. It's a fringe benefit that Wikipedia allows users to create and improve articles to share information with others, which I gladly participate in. I'm reminded of the old proverb, part of which reads, "He who knows not, and knows not he knows not, He is a fool, shun him." Too many who fit that definition are trying to edit Wikipedia, and there's no easy solution. - BilCat (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I expect the IPs to show back up, but semi is available if they do. I don't expect any conversations on the talk pages, but we can always hope. - BilCat (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I noticed that. Btw, Aircrafts and motorboats decided to vandalize two articles and got him-/her-/itself indef blocked. CIR strikes again! - BilCat (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It might also be "stupidity caused by youth and inexperience", also known as immaturity. But some people never grow out of that either. :) - BilCat (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, when you reverted my edit here on Wikipedia, you said in the edit summary that the shootdown was not an accident. But when you reverted this edit here, you said in the edit summary that the shootdown was an accident. Does an aviation shootdown count as an accident or not? I am confused here.
Sorry if that sounded inconsistent. The second edit labelled the event "mass murder", which is obviously not the case. The shoot down was a mistake on the part of the IRGC, who thought they were shooting at incoming attacking aircraft, they didn't intend to shoot down an airliner. In launching the two missiles they intended to kill someone, but not the airliner crew and passengers. As far as the airline itself is concerned it isn't treated like your garden variety aviation accident, as it was not the failure of an aircraft part, system or crew; there was nothing the airline could have done to prevent it other than "not fly" and so it is not comparable to other aviation accidents for cause or prevention. The main reason for removing your addition, however, was WP:AVILAYOUT-WW, as we have a consensus not to make those sort of comparisons. - Ahunt (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You thanked me for something in 2017 (thanks log: ) whatever it was, you're welcome. Earlier in '10s I got discouraged with Wikipedia, so the thanks helped, but I doubt I'll ever feel the same as I did about Wikipedia about as when it began... on various articles not always fitting popular knowledge/views, there was so much edit-warring the mediation group gave up so I had to also... still the case, except I'm almost sure I'll be back occasionally/rarely trying to edit only other articles than those. I hope you will also, but a lot of people left in the '10s (including many I knew.)--dchmelik (t|c)
Thanks for your note. I am glad my "thank you" acted as some sort of encouragement, which was my intention. Wikipedia can be a frustrating milieu to work in, but it can be very rewarding, too. Fifteen years later and with almost 3,000 new articles started, I am still at it. In many ways my secret to lasting here has been to work in small niche areas that no one else seems to care about. You can have a lot of free reign to work here as long as you stay away from controversial subjects and write about arctic lichens or similar areas that few people care to create conflicts or drama over. I hope to see you around when you are here writing! - Ahunt (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted my edit of Ubuntu allegedly because the animated GIF violates WP:IUP#ANIM which says: "Inline animations should be used sparingly; a static image with a link to the animation is preferred unless the animation has a very small file size". Here is a comparison of the current static screenshot (PNG) and the animated GIF as they are displayed in the infobox:
I'd say that my edit did not increase considerately the size of the screenshot image. On the other side, the GIF demonstrates the look of Ubuntu desktop much better. -- Rprpr (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, it is also horribly distracting to readers and adds nothing comprehensible in thumbnail format. As WP:IUP#ANIM says "Inline animations should be used sparingly; a static image with a link to the animation is preferred". If you really think it needs to be considered for inclusion, then as per WP:BRD please start a discussion on Talk:Ubuntu. - Ahunt (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember, my brain's in a blender, it's jello
Hi Adam, do remember the guideline/essay that recommends not cross-examining every iVote in discussions? I think you added it recently to a discussion where that was happening, but I can't remember where. It's happening again in another discussion, and I'd like to use it if my iVote is cross examined. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for checking some of my aircraft specs template conversions! I saw that you reverted at Aces High Cuby, I believe due to me leaving a lot of parameters and comments relating to the old template. I have now added more checks and there should only be used parameters for the new template left. I have also been checking every edit in preview to make sure no errors are triggered and all information is retained. Finally I saw that you removed a lot of duplicate parameters when the same figure was given in several units. I'm a bit weary to do this since I don't want to introduce more rounding errors and therefore have been keeping both so it is fateful to how it looked before. I hope this explains some of the choices I've made and I'm looking forward to hearing from you if you have any feedback. Thanks! --Trialpears (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note here and for your thoughtful reply. Thanks for fixing things, too. Replacing templates is all a learning process. My own approach in replacing those same templates in some other articles has been to copy in the new template and then re-source the specs from the original refs from scratch. It is more work that way, but eliminates the rounding errors, original transcription errors, plus cleans out any unsourced specs that may have been added, but your current approach seems to be working fine, now too. It would be nice to have a bot that could do this! - Ahunt (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's why the transclusion numbers are so much lower! A bot sure would be nice but sadly not plausible. I tried about a year ago putting down a lot of work trying to get a bot to either convert a template or recognize that it should be left for humans. For all the tests I did there were always times when it would fail because of different formatting or it would be way too restrictive only being able to deal with a few percent of cases. My current AWB based setup will probably be the quickest way to do it while ensuring no information is lost. Your approach is probably the best in the really weird or difficult cases though or when something looks fishy. --Trialpears (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm likely in the wrong here, since I'm pretty new to Wiki editing. But, it's pretty well established by multiplesources that the Wright brothers did not initially use a catapult to launch their aircraft, and only added one in 1904. This contradicts the archived source used to make the point that Dumont launched the first aircraft without catapult on the "Airplane" Wiki page, which led me to add the word "erroneously". Is there any other way to make this clear that is acceptable? PaKYr (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Yeah, the Dumont section needs to be thoroughly checked to make sure that the cited sources are reliable, and that the paragraph only states what is actually in those sources. The pro-Dumont lobby often adds unsourced original research and opinion, so those sections have to be watched carefully. It's an odd situation since most of the competing claims for first flights are said to have occurred before the Wright Brothers' first flights. Strangely, the Dumont lobby only focuses on the Wrights, and trying to prove their flights weren't "real" flights. - BilCat (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing the ref for the CH-148 article. I'm still amazed that people just don't seem to grasp the concept of sourcing their additions. - BilCat (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well we have only been at it for 18 years, flat learning curve! That was an easy one, as I saw it go by on CBC news the day before! - Ahunt (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
there's something smellier about this place over time... but thankfully there are some parts that still seem relatively innocent or not in the focus of fish and turkeys JarrahTree12:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why were the edits to the page listed as spam when all of the things removed pointed to external sources as well as internal sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifer.Badr (talk • contribs)
Your additions were all to add tons of external links to your own company website. That is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please read WP:SPAM to understand why not.
You obviously work for the company that is the subject of the article so are in a conflict of interest. You really nee to read WP:COI, declare your conflict of interest, stop editing the article and instead make suggestions on the article talk page for changes that can be assessed by neutral editors for inclusion or not. - Ahunt (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted a warning and some policy links on User talk:Jennifer.Badr, also a note on the article talk page. Hopefully the message will sink in and all will now proceed with due decorum. I'm off to bed now (other side of the pond), but if edit warring occurs again over the next few hours, you'd be justified in going straight to WP:ANI/EW. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the warnings left there. Still afternoon here, so I will keep an eye on it and request a block if needed. - Ahunt (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you see replies to messages that you leave on other people's talk pages, but I think that image I added enriches the article. I took that picture 4 years ago and am not promoting anything.
Regarding this, no, it added nothing to the article and had your name as a credit all over it, which is why I removed it. If you think it needs to be included then please make a case on the article talk page and see if other editors support including it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I hadn't seen that one yet. I'm not sure what the restrictions on COIs creating drafts are, if it's the same as editing articles or not. I'll ask around. - BilCat (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I asked User:Diannaa about it. The draft also contains some verbatim copies of another website, and she's the copyvio Wikiguru. - BilCat (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I tagged the draft as COI and also the company rep who started it, too. Right now it is just flagrant promotion so it isn't going anywhere like that. I read all the background on it: it is four guys with a website and a model aircraft, trying to raise $200M in venture capital. No products, no location, nothing notable there. If they build a prototype and fly it then it should have an article. - Ahunt (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has now been refused "speedy", cut down and basically left for dead. I guess we'll see how it develops over time. - Ahunt (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted images specifically in the context of web browser logos
I am very confused by your removal of the MS Edge logo on the userbox I created. Pretty much every browser logo watermark (the Google Chrome logo as one big one) is allowed in userboxes, even the older Microsoft Edge logo is allowed. Why is the newer logo for the Chromium version of the browser not allowed? I am very confused by this. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 01:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note here. You have to check the exact licence for any logo you want to use in a userbox as you can only use freely licenced images, not copyright images. For example the logo for Edge that you wanted to use File:Microsoft Edge logo (2019).svg is all rights reserved, due it is compexity, whereas for instance the old logo you substituted File:Microsoft Edge logo (2015–2019).svg is licenced "This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain." The same applies for the Chrome logo, File:Google Chrome icon (September 2014).svg which says, "This image of simple geometry is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship." - Ahunt (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for the re-edit and adding in the explanation. Sorry, im just trying to get my bearings.DarkerDai (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
it bugged me that all sorts of insignificant paragliders had their own articles, but the one true hotship did not. So I created one, using your articles as a template: Draft:Ozone_Enzo. It's still pending review because I don't have an account. I thought you might want to check it out (and possibly review it early?). Cheers! --37.201.4.213 (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your note here. I think I started all the existing paraglider type articles that we have on en.wikipedia, just because I had the interest (former PG pilot) and the third party refs to do that. Missing any types was not any attempt to exclude any, but just the limitations of the paper references I have here.
I have read your article and it looks pretty good. I am glad that my basic layout was helpful as a template to start from! My only thought about what is there is the use of blogspot refs. Generally these fall into WP:SPS, unless the author is under one of the exceptions mentioned there. Thoughts? - Ahunt (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any better refs due to the nature of the scene, but I think an exception applies: Lucian Haas is a respected author in the german speaking scene and is also a frequent contributor for the DHV and SHV print club magazines, as well as commercial magazines like Thermik and Cross Country (international). Some of his DHV print articles are available here: [1], unfortunately only for DHV club members. --37.201.4.213 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, no. I could write something about how the wing behaves in turbulent air, how it feels on the b handles etc (or twoliners in general), but that would be original research because there are little to no citable papers. If you're fine with the article, I kindly ask you to move it to the article namespace :) --37.201.4.213 (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, what's a "two-liner"? It's used in the article's lead but has no explanation for the uninitiated, myself included. There at least needs to be a wiki-link somewhere if another article discusses it. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a paraglider with only two levels of lines (not counting brake lines), one near the leading edge, and one near the trailing edge. This allows faster speed and better AoA control, but harsher reactions on collapses. High level competitions see only two liners, while almost all leisure pilots use traditional three liners. Would you put that in an own article, or rather as a section in Paraglider? --2A02:8071:91C1:EC00:9984:4EB4:8444:395E (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding the photo. You really should open an account as it looks like you will be contributing for a while to Wikipedia! You do good work, so we would be glad to have you! - Ahunt (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Adam,
With all due respect, I was a bit surprised to see articles for insignificant models of paragliders such as Ozone Proton, Gradient Golden. Can you justify their notability? I put a {{notability}} tag on two such articles but upon realizing how many you had created, thought perhaps it's best to have that conversation here concerning all these articles.
Thanks for uploading File:BDC Aero Industrie Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi there, Ahunt. I don't think our paths have crossed until now. Thanks for taking an interest in this biography and the list of female aviators. I think, however, I owe you a word of explanation. If the biography makes it clear she was not a pilot, then perhaps I did not include sufficient detail. The sources not only document her piloting lessons but also state she flew frequently without holding a license. I realized this was a borderline case but thought it would be useful to include her, given her close associations with aviation. Nevertheless, I accept your interpretation of what should or should not be included in the list. In contrast to her contemporaries (many of whom are also included in the timeline, Sannom certainly did not make any historical contributions to aviation. By the way, I've been looking at a bunch of the articles you have written about aviation, boats, etc., etc. You've certainly been making a very impressive contribution to the encyclopaedia.--Ipigott (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
can you suggest or supply another photo of a AW109E helicopter that does not have either it's company name or it's registration?
Sloane Helicopters Limited is the UK distributor for the AW109 series and Castle Air - who owned the aircraft that was lost in the incident, is their chief rival but more than that they're is the issue that G-MEDX operates in the UK as a charity funded Air Ambulance, so it is not a great advert for them.
Well that is why the caption indicates it is just a similar A109, and not the accident aircraft. All aircraft are going to have registrations, as it is required in all nations. As far as finding an alternate photo you will have to have a look through them on Commons. There are many hundreds there. - Ahunt (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the edits you reverted in Canadian Yachting today were done by the owner of the company that publishes the magazine, John Kerr. [2] I realise he didn't provide any references but I expect what he added and edited in is correct. He should know. Your call. Ken Heaton (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well WP:COI applies of course, but regardless, we need refs for text added as per WP:PROVEIT. You started the article and are familiar with the subject, do you have any refs for his changes? - Ahunt (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for your tireless creation of new articles about sailboats!
Thanks. I'm a bit under the weather today (hopefully not Covid!), so I do appreciate it. I don't generally ask another editor to do work I could handle myself, so thanks. I'll try not to keep make a habit of it. :) - BilCat (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, can I ask for some advice? You made an edit to VisualOn a couple of days ago. The edit before yours seems poorly referenced (backs up to an article on another wiki site, with no citations), and more to the point, the edit comment is a bit inappropriate. I was going to restore the article to the version before that, but that would also get rid of the few subsequent kosher edits, and I wasn't sure if that was the best approach. When you have a mo, could you take a look and action as needed, or else let me know how to best deal with such things in the future? Sorry to bother you, but you just happened to stop by the right article at the right time! :) TIA, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't anything non-admins can do about edit comments in the history, but I think that they are important to have there if a future block is discussed. - Ahunt (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adam, I find myself "copyediting" articles on websites as I read them. I've always been that way to some extent, but it's been worse since I joined Wikipedia! I was just reading this article, and found several apparent mistakes.
The main one is this paragraph: "So, Buffalo, after a mad six-day scramble set off when the Blue Jays met the health criteria at the city and provincial levels, but got stuffed by the federal government." I've re-read it several times, but it appears to be composed solely of dependent clauses and phrases. I sometimes do that on talk pages when I rewrite a sentence too many times, and that may have been what happened here. - BilCat (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well that one certainly needs re-writing. You can always e-mail them your corrected copy - most media outlets really appreciate input! The world should be more like Wikipedia, where we can fix things! - Ahunt (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to hear from you. In fact I was just thinking that same thing. Certainly catamarans could be made a separate group on that template, if not split to a new template altogether. - Ahunt (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. If it needs splitting into a new template then that would be an easy follow-on step. Do you want to tackle that? - Ahunt (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can do templates easily enough, but the labour is in unapplying the old and applying the new. I'm much more in favour of a single template but made not to overwhelm. I'd suggest groups, probably collapsed. I wonder if a template can be made to collapse or expand based on a category? That is beyond me. FiddleFaddle19:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I am aware of, unless they are separate nav boxes. If you want to go ahead and just move the catamarans into a separate sub-section of the existing nav box then please do go ahead. - Ahunt (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look over the next few days. No time right now. Sometimes I have trouble guessing what's a cat! I'm an old Tornado sailor back when cats were easy to spot! FiddleFaddle20:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rather fun. I like your boat a lot! I don't own a boat now, but I'm one of the managers of Dart Sailability (scroll down a level and you'll find me). We take folk with disabilities afloat and teach them sailing and powerboating. This season's been a bit of a washout! FiddleFaddle20:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They look very capable boats. We have Hansa 303s that we have to keep afloat in a marina, which is sub-optimal. The disability side is very rewarding. More power to your club's elbow FiddleFaddle20:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Martin 16 is a good boat. It looks like a dinghy, but is actually a very small keelboat. I posted a whole gallery that I shot of them on commons. - Ahunt (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a start on the template. Feel free to continue. We can sort this together.
The Martin looks good. I'd like to see it in a strong breeze, too, but we limit our sailing to force 5. We have a Hawk 20 which is a heavy metal centre plate boat. The Hansas are keelboats (and technically schooners!), and we hope to try an RS Venture Connect when we can borrow one FiddleFaddle21:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they take them out in more than 12 knots. We have a whole dock dedicated to support with cranes to lift sailors into the boats from their wheelchairs. - Ahunt (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Morning has broken. I've pretty much finished. The Cat section is now done and the template applied to any new entries. A couple of redlinks exist. I'm ambivalent about that. I retitled the template itself (the template name is the same). {{Sailing Scows}} might be re-included now as a group. I'm tempted just to get in and do that later, make sure its applied and unapply that template, but Ild like your thoughts, probably on the template talk page.
I want to look at a way of easier index access to the various classes in the great swathe. I'll talk to you about that rather than being bold. I may use my sandbox to play and invite you in to see. That is a longer term thing. FiddleFaddle07:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I chose a trivial mechanism and it can be undone if you think it adds no value. I thought about subdividing into lengths but realised that my thinking was faulty (that was the area I was going to discuss, but was too tired to think properly last night). So I took the existing length subdivisions and split them into alpha halves. It's trivial, neat, uncontentious, and required next to no thought. It's also repeatable, with no real thought FiddleFaddle11:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks okay like that to me, at least for now. I will give a better check and see if we missed any catamarans that need shifting. - Ahunt (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ahunt! On 29th July I inserted a high-resolution external image in DG Flugzeugbau DG-1000 to supplement the low-resolution image in the Infobox. You then relegated the external image to the External links section at the bottom of the page. See your diff.
Your edit summary said “should be under external links”. The edit summary confirms that you moved the image to the External links section, but does nothing to explain why you did so. Your use of the word “should” seems to imply there is a Rule specifying that external images must only be located under the External links section. I’m not aware of any Rule related to the location of external images but I’m willing to be educated. Why should external images be under external links? Dolphin(t)12:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that might be your reasoning. Clearly, the External links section is available to be used for external links that have no other place, but it is a reversal of logic to imagine that all external links MUST go into the External links section. (Many of our in-line citations constitute external links to reliable published sources. Those citations are placed in the References section; not in the External links section.)
About a decade ago I worked to upgrade a couple of important articles to Good Article status. See 1946 Australian National Airways DC-3 crash and 1950 Australian National Airways Douglas DC-4 crash. Each article contains at least one external image. Those external images are located within their articles at the points where they contribute the greatest value to the article. Neither article has an External links section. At no stage during the Good Article process, or in the subsequent decade, has there been any suggestion that these external images are placed inappropriately, or that there inclusions break any Rules.
I will assume there is no Rule dictating that external images must go in the External links section. It sounds as though you think there should be such a Rule. Could I politely suggest that you raise the necessary proposal in the appropriate place to establish a new Rule that would meet your expectations? In the ensuing debate we will be able to see whether there is any consensus for your proposed Rule. Best regards. Dolphin(t)13:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly concerned when an external image is removed on the grounds that it provides nothing more than is provided by the internal image available in the infobox. I concede that the external image in question was basically similar to the image in the DG-1000 infobox (although the external image was of much higher resolution.) I wonder if this Admin is aware of Schleicher ASW 20, which has its own mini-gallery of low-resolution images.
If I see an alternative high-quality image for the DG-1000, significantly different from the one in the infobox, I will insert it as an external image and see what happens. Dolphin(t)12:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the past I have put external links to aircraft type photos (as links in the external links section) when the article has no photo of the aircraft or only a really poor one that doesn't show the aircraft well. In general, once we get a photo of the aircraft I have removed the links, as they serve no purpose for the reader at that point. That isn't a policy, just my own editing. I just don't see our role as sending readers to external websites to see photos, unless we have nothing to show them here. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TPS. My understanding of this template is that it is only used where no images exist at all, it has not been used in articles for some time as we have a good library at Commons now. Nimbus(Cumulusnimbusfloats by)18:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Internet censorship topic is Semi-protection and I can't add information about internet shutdown in Iran, at the Shutdowns part of the topic. It's link of the topic:
https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Internet_censorship
To do this right and allow input from other editors, if required, you should detail what you would like to add, along with references on Talk:Internet censorship. I'll watch that page and help you out there. - Ahunt (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adam, I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm not sure how any of this works. I couldn't find your email so I'm posting this here. The reason I'm getting in touch with you is because my father just so happened to purchase the exact same Mirage 26 you photographed: the "Windborn". We don't know the history of the sail boat from 1978 to 2005. I was wondering if you knew anything about it.
No problem, this is as good a place as any to ask! As the photo file indicates, I took that photo on 21 May 2018, at Nepean Sailing Club. It was really just an early-in-the-sailing-season chance that it was in its slip and had no boat beside it, making it easy to get a clear shot of it. I take as many sailboat photos as I can to use in illustrating Wikipedia articles. That is the only photo of that boat that I have taken, which means that I have never seen out out sailing or I would have a photo of that. The dockside photos like this one are "okay", but I really prefer to have the "lead infobox" photo for an article one of the boat under sail! In checking the NSC records I see the boat is no longer at the club. Other than an old 2018 mooring list with the owner's name at that time, I have no further information on the boat and I should add that I don't personally know the owner. It looks like he is also no longer a current club member. Sorry that all isn't much help, but at least you have the photo of how the boat looked then!
Just a thought, but if you are sailing the boat and have a chance to get a photo of it taken under sail and can convince the photographer to upload it to commons, we could really use it to make the Mirage 26 article look nicer! If you happen to be sailing it on the Lac Deschênes part of the Ottawa River, perhaps we could rendezvous out on the water some time and I could get some photos of it under sail for you! - Ahunt (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Given it's a small company, you could contact them directly and ask them to release some photos to Commons. (Small companies generally need more PR, and this would help.) I'm not up on what the best license would be, but there are some short of PD that would still give the company some control over the photos if they don't want to release them as PD. BilCat (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have reduced one of the company PR photos and uploaded it as "fair use" and put it in the article. I agree with Bill, though that the ideal solution would be to ask the company to upload some of their higher resolution photos to Commons under a free licence. It would be in their own best interests to do so, to allow free use of the images far and wide, to let people see what it looks like. - Ahunt (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you have removed the citation needed template on the statement that a Drascombe Lugger is a keelboat - stating in the edit summary that in modern terminology, that is the case. The purpose of the citation needed template is to ask for an RS that explains and validates the classification. Simply making a statement in an edit summary does not meet the requirement. A way of dealing with this, without disrupting the flow of the article, is to put a footnote that explains the terminology that you are using and how that is relevant to the configuration of this boat and put the appropriate references in the footnote.
The reason that this needs to be clarified is that, by the terminology you are using, a Wayfarer dinghy, among others, suddenly becomes a keelboat. Looking at PBO's glossary (centreboard) they are quite happy to talk about a dinghy having a centreboard or centreplate. So I would be interested to see what RS you can come up with for a shift in terminology. I would add I cannot find any references that specifically describe the Drascombe Lugger as a keelboat. Even if the terminology is in a state of transition, or has recently changed (and I see no clear evidence of that from a quick look) the article needs to explain the terminology with references.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note here. You sent me to find all the refs I could dredge up on the web and on paper and the consensus seems to be that a keelboat needs to have a fixed, weighted keel and not a centreboard, whether weighted or not. So a Drascombe Scaffie is a keelboat, but a Drascombe Lugger isn't. I am not sure how we classify boats like the CS 22 (illustrated at right here) or the Corvette 31, which, possessing both weighted keels and weighted centerboards, seem to be both. - Ahunt (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess that if there is a ballast keel on a sailing boat, it is a keelboat, regardless of whether or not there is a centreboard fitted to improve lateral resistance. However, many of these will be described as a "centreboarder" as that is the most obvious differentiating characteristic. The ballast keel bit is either separately explained or obvious in context. To me (and Yachts and Yachting[3]) the main thing about a keelboat is that you are not going to capsize in ordinary conditions. (As you are no doubt aware, the Lugger can capsize - it should certainly be sailed with an awareness that this might happen - even if it is nothing like a racing dinghy.)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts. So I guess I will just describe the configuration of the boats that have both weighted keels and weighted centreboards and not call them "keelboats", just to avoid any possible confusion. - Ahunt (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One point to add: I don't think the Scaffie fits the bill as a keelboat. The ballasting is with water ballast. Otherwise it is a traditional hull shape, a long-keeled open boat with substantial bilge keels that presumably help it stay upright when dried out, as well as giving some lateral resistance. I don't think the people who own and sail these boats would think of them as keelboats - certainly if they had encountered anything like the Dragon (keelboat). Maritime terminology is a frustratingly imprecise subject (the Drasombe Lugger being an example, because it is not lug rigged), but I don't think "keelboat" is the most fuzzy topic.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Water ballast is common in many boats in this overall type. For the Scaffie, here is some evidence: Owners' association:[4] An owner talking about his boat:[5] at about 2 mins 20 seconds. A broker's advert which cuts and pastes the info from the owner's association - but a broker would get into trouble if they made a descriptive error - so this is an additional source:[6] Another broker advert with less plagiarism:[7]. Clearly the manufacturers keep this aspect of their boat a secret, but I would trust a large number of owners and some brokers who it would cost money to have bad descriptions. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting! Thanks for finding that info. I used the association ref it to make the changes. Very odd that none of the refs cited, including the manufacturer mention that! - Ahunt (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, please do not un-close html tags like here. Your edit was somewhat useless because it has no effect on the page display, but more importantly, un-closed html tags are a nuisance for people like me who use syntax highlighting (see also Help:Line-break handling#<br /> or <br>). It does no harm to leave in the slash, but removing it messes up the editing window for me. Thanks. kennethaw88 • talk04:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note here. I am not sure why your syntax highlighter is not detecting <br> tags, perhaps it is out of date? See this for the current HTML 5 format for break tags. Since the introduction of HTML5, trailing slants and spaces have been deprecated in HTML mark-up, although, as noted in your ref cited, for now Wiki mark up conversion still converts all variations of them. You can note that within HTML5 <br> tags are not "un-closed", as they are self-closing in the same way that img src tags are self-closing. - Ahunt (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I am back after a very long absence and have created a page in my Sandbox for David B. Gracy II and published it and thought that the instructions said an editor would look the page over before it went live. I don't know how long that takes, but I'm wondering if I goofed it up? Should I not have placed it in my Sandbox but looked for the name (the page doesn't exist), and then published it? I tried to look over the instructions but I'm a bit overwhelmed. Any guidance here would be appreciated! Thanks. Archivisticus (talk) 04:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, great to hear from you. There are lots of different was to start a new article and just writing it in your sandbox is one acceptable way to do that. So no problem there. I just give it a quick check over and made one small formatting correction. Otherwise it seems basically okay to go "live" as an article and let other editors have a go at it. If you like you can just click on "more" at the top right of that pages and move it to David B. Gracy II. Let me know if you can't do that due to lack of permissions or whatever. - Ahunt (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that and your advice! When I tried to move the contents of my Sandbox page, it seemed like I was actually going to move my Sandbox page, so I copied the code and searched for "David B. Gracy II" and then clicked on the "create page" and popped the code in there. It seemed to work, but the name generated for it seems to have it as "David b. gracy II" where the middle initial and last name are not capitalized. Should I leave it that way? I can't find where in the code it generates from. And so I know for next time, what was the formatting correction? Again, thanks so much for your valuable input. I so appreciate it!!Archivisticus (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It actually does move your sandbox to the new title, that is how it works. No matter, it is fine where it is and I note that another editor has already moved it again to fix the capitalization issue. - Ahunt (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I write to you because you appear to be the editor most involved in and committed to the pages related to Taoist Tai Chi. My name is Mary and I am a Taoist Tai Chi® arts participant, who has been a part of this organization for 25 years. I care very much about these arts and the organization that nurtures them and I volunteer my time to help out in any way I can. As you remember, with the exception of a small group of administrative staff, most of the work is done by volunteers. The board of directors (also volunteers) of Fung Loy Kok Institute of Taoism, the home of Taoist Tai Chi® arts, has asked for my help in bringing this site more up to date to reflect both legal and administrative changes as well as an evolved understanding of what it is we do.
I am new to Wiki and with your editing credits, you obviously have a good understanding of the most effective and most appropriate ways to make changes. I would like to ask your advice on the best way to approach this task in a collaborative and respectful manner. We see this as a slow long-term project and have no interest in coming in like cowboys.
Hi Mary, thanks for your note here. Sure, I would be happy to help out.
I should start by pointing out that anyone representing the organization that is the subject of a Wikipedia article (whether paid or not) is considered to be in a conflict of interest on that subject. As that links explains the correct way to approach this is to make requests for changes to the article on its talk page, for instance on Taoist Tai Chi at Talk:Taoist Tai Chi and then other, non-COI editors, including me, will assess the requests and see about making the changes, if appropriate and discuss them there on the talk page. It is probably worthwhile to note that, because we are an encyclopedia, we are very careful to avoid making the articles promotional in any way and we require references that can be cited for any substantive text added.
This is very helpful A. Hunt,
Thank you for this, it will help us shape our responses. We appreciate any support and will be posting soon.
Marylll (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Marylll[reply]
Hi Adam,
Thanks for welcome, and thanks for your enormous contribution of sailing material here. I've had a hiatus from Wikipedia since joining in 2008 and using a MediaWiki in my professional life. I'm a bit rusty now. JohnCBDavey (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Glad that you find my sailboat additions here useful! Thanks for the B-32 photo, it was far better than any of mine. I am assuming that you must be at BYC. - Ahunt (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note here. I have read the article and the main issue, as the tag notes is that it only has first party refs so doesn't meet WP:GNG. An internet search doesn't show up any third party refs that I found. Are you aware of any paper refs that might available? If not then it may just be a single non-notable example of a homebuilt aircraft and we should send the article for deletion. As far as photos go, the plane still exists and seems to be flown, so we can't justify using a "fair use" image, need to have someone release one under a free licence. Of course if better refs can't be located it won't matter. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have not been very active in making edits to Wikipedia so I am trying to understand the rules. My Clutton FRED site (in consultation for the last 10 years with designer Eric Clutton, now in his 90s) and my new Wolf Boredom Fighter site (reviewed by the son of the late designer) are the closest things to official sites that exist on the internet for these designs. I have had a link to my site on the Wikipedia Clutton FRED entry for many years as there is literally no other comparable source of information and inspiration on the internet when someone is interested in building one of these planes. Could you please explain how to characterize these non-commercial sites created as a service to the designers and interested builders? Also, I saw that you edited a link I had added to Don Stewart's site. He *is* the designer so his site is the official site, and while his old http://www.stewartaircraft.com/ URL is no longer active, his site is still up at https://sites.google.com/site/flywithstewart/. Cheers, Matthew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owlnmole (talk • contribs) 00:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I get that, it's just not something that has come up in these many years. Can you please help me update the Clutton-Tabenor FRED site to include a corrected plans price "$75 plans and book only (2019)" and a reference to https://cluttonfred.info/plansbooks as the source? I do not understand how to use the archive and URL status functions you added to the similar entry on the Wolf Boredom Fighter page. Owlnmole (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The Clutton FRED page already says "Prices and postage current as of February 2019." I will add a similar note to the Boredom Fighter plans page. One other note...there are a couple of bad links to Don Stewart's old site in the Stewart Foo Fighter page as well as more mistakes (some of them mine) in the Stewart Headwind page (a much more popular design). I have no personal connection to those pages or Don Stewart, just FYI. Thanks and regards, Matthew Owlnmole (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quote correct! The CF/RCAF never flew the Strikemaster. We had CT-114 Tutors (431 Sqn still does, for now, anyway), but those were in different role, training vs light attack. Yeah your edit summary was funny. - Ahunt (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HELLO!!🙂 I have always followed your edits in the field of Linux and FOSS, I find them very helpful and correct, I also noticed that you was the one who created my talk page and sent a welcome message to me in November 2013, so I decided to appreciate you and to say your edits are valuable.
Two items, Adam. One relates to the fact that you’ve been a contributor to the page about Mountain Equipment Co-op, and added some info/citations about the recent shift — the sale of all assets to corporate interests. My wife & I were buying from MEC when they had Vancouver premises barely larger than a two-car garage, so we were early members. I wonder what will “co-op” membership mean anymore? Do you know if that has been divulged by the current owners, or discussed anywhere on the internet among members?
Second thing: I’ve noticed that you’ve created many Wikipedia user boxes. Would you, by any chance, care to create a better one for us welders? There's one on my user page, currently — inadequate, but I haven’t much talent for graphics in general, nor an image to use.
Thanks for your note here, it is nice to hear from you. In reading through all the refs I have not found seen any statement by the new owners, Kingswood, on their plans, beyond 17 stores and 75% of the employees to be retained for now. As I understand it, the co-op will continue to exist and all the current members will still be members of it, but it will have no assets and not carry out any sales or any other functions, essentially a zombie co-op. The MEC "brand" is going to continue as a brand of a private US-based company, but you won't need a membership to shop there, it will not be a co-op, even though the name on the store will still be "MEC".
Incidentally I have been a member since 1985. I was at the Ottawa store today, looking for bike parts and the store is 60% empty shelves. It looked like a "going out of business sale". I am not sure why that was, perhaps since they are in CCAA suppliers have stopped shipping to them?
Thanks for the MEC info. Also, I appreciate your willingness to make an interest user box — very generous. The wording would be brief & simple. And I have a couple of jpegs that might work, so I could send those to you for a decision. How would I do that? (Our Wikipedia User pages used to offer an email option, but it seems to have disappeared.) - Joel Russ (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I uploaded a pic (that I made) that I'm hoping will suffice. It's Electric welding rig And the wording can be brief & simple, i.e. This user is a welder. Again, thanks for being willing to make the userbox.Joel Russ (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's basically good. Might be better to de-wikify the word welder, because it links to professional welders, and (as with trombonists or golfers) some, like me, are not professionals (tradesmen). I'm no graphic artist, but I think it might also be improved with a somewhat larger font so the words fill the space to the right more. I hate to be finicky (LOL).Joel Russ (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, I failed to find the Diesel Air Dair 100 page you wrote, so I wrote one of my own. I then found yours and merged mine into it, turning the page I'd created into a redirect. Must look harder in future! Arrivisto (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for making that welders' userbox. I’ve put it on my user page, and I hope others will find it in the “user interests” section and, if it fits them, get some use out of it. Joel Russ (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have taken it upon yourself to twice remove my edit of the inclusion of John Wayne's "Hellfighters" from the entry. This is kind of sad, because I didn't know this plane existed until seeing the film and I am a GA pilot who has an interest in uncommon aircraft. Seeing the odd four engine configuration made me want to know what it is. The first reversion I get because I included no reference. The plane is featured several times in the film, including a trip to pick up Wayne's estranged daughter following a job site accident. This trip brings her in contact with one of the main characters and sets up the romantic storyline in the film. Multiple scenes take place on the plane as the oilfield fires they fight happen around the globe. I am not sure what level of reference will make you happy but the plane doesn't just appear in passing; instead, several scenes of dialogue happen while in flight. I get that you want information to be accurate but I fail to understand why a set piece for an important plot element is insufficient for inclusion.Es330td (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note here, although this really should be discussed at Talk:Aircraft in fiction. There are millions of appearances of aircraft in all the various types of media, so, to avoid listing minor appearances and making the Aircraft in fiction article incredibly long, we have a consensus to only include Real world aircraft (not fictional or made-up aircraft) that have significant roles in books, films, video games and as toys, provided reliable refs are supplied. The ref you supplied says A JetStar appeared in the James Bond film Goldfinger, the John Wayne film Hellfighters and in the Sylvester Stallone film "Cliffhanger". There is no indication that it is a significant role and not just a minor appearance. In fact it says it was just an appearance. The ref itself doesn't seem to be much of a WP:RS either. To include this we need a third party ref that shows it has a "significant role". - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A photo has been deleted from Wikipedia page (Dharam Vir Ahluwalia). I do not know how the page creater obtained this photo. It was taken by my research group and I hereby give permission for it to be used in this context.
Hello, thanks for your note. It seems to have been removed from Commons because it lacked the permission of the copyright holder. You can't give permission to use a photo taken by someone else as they are the copyright holder under US law, not the person who is the subject of the photo. The person who took the photo can upload it to commons under a free licence. - Ahunt (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:RAAusLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
I can sort of understand your reasoning in deleting a photo from the article. However, I am dubious about your reflex action in deleting the last photo supplied. The article already has two photos of helicopters performing medical evacuations and a photo of an aircraft interior, but no photo showing evacuation by light aircraft--which is where medevac began. Additionally, the deleted photo shows medevac's historical beginnings. The article would have a more balanced visual presentation if the Breguet photo could replace one of the helicopter pictures. Or you could say the heck with it and just restore the Breguet. And if the article is too short...well, it could really use lengthening.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. Yes it could use lengthening and then it could accept more photos! The main reason I axed that photo you added was that it did not show the aircraft in question in the medeveac role, could have been any use. - Ahunt (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done - all yours! - Ahunt (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Facepalm - Ahunt (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
