User talk:Ahunt/Archive09

Re: List of aerospace museums

You're most certainly welcome, and thank you for the note of appreciation :)  -- WikHead (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Museum at Meacham Texas

Hello Mr Hunt!

Yes - I did visit Meacham in late 2006. Unfortunately the museum is only open at Weekends and my itinerary meant that I could only go midweek. The only photos was able to take were of an F-4J Phantom II and an OV-10A Bronco. These aircraft were outside but do not appear on the list of contents per Bob Ogden's book dated 2007. The last newsletter on the museum website is dated late 2009. One does not get the impression of a go-ahead organisation. Sorry not to be able to help this time! Thanks for your continued improvements to my new articles - I'm still not on top of some of the technicalities of web-links etc! Best wishes RuthAS (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear! Sorry to let you down - I've quite a few photos of B-17's and B-25's - but not the two from Meacham, I'm afraid! Will be at Sun n'Fun in four weeks time and will look out for them, in case they appear there. Not going to Oshkosh this year. Don't hesitate to ask in future for images, in case I can help. RuthAS (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't attack you

Don't whine because I reverted your edit. The edit (not you as a person) was simply bogus.

In the future: Read the article, add missing references yourself and not not just add “Citation needed” templates. That helps no one, unless your aim is to just boost your edit count… --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: responded to at User talk:KAMiKAZOW. - Ahunt (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Do not talk to me. Thank you. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You can carry out a personal attack, then refuse to admit it, clear the warning from your talk page and then refuse to talk about it if you like, but it stills forms part of your editing record and will be brought up as grounds for a block if you carry out any future similar behaviour. - Ahunt (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the welcome home! --Rlandmann (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem, it will be good to have your sharp pen back! - Ahunt (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It's okay to start a paragraph/sentence with a conjunction

I hope the following will help Ahunt understand why I undid his change to the Gatineau Park article. And why you can start a sentence/paragraph with a conjunction.

This is what R.W. Burchfield has to say about this use of and: at the beginning of a sentence:

“There is a persistent belief that it is improper to begin a sentence with And, but this prohibition has been cheerfully ignored by standard authors from Anglo-Saxon times onwards. An initial And is a useful aid to writers as the narrative continues.” (The New Fowler's Modern English Usage,edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996).

And here’s an example of its use from one of the masterpieces of English literature, the King James Bible: Genesis 1:3:

“And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. “9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13And the evening and the morning were the third day.

“14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

“20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

“24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

“26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”

And I would add there are countless references supporting use of conjunctions at the beginning of paragraphs/sentences, and dispelling its prohibition as myth … And arbitrary practice.Stoneacres (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Answered at Talk:Gatineau Park - Ahunt (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Newbie in need of help with first article

Hi, A. I just created my first article, but the title is messed up because I got to the "create" page with from a search term that was enclosed in quote marks. So what I have is exactly this: "4 Degrees and Beyond International Climate Conference" " ... three quote marks, and I would like to have none. How can I make that change?

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coastwise (talk • contribs) 08:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks (3 years later)

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I bestow thee this barnstar for saying 'hi' to a random Wikipedian who had only made 3 edits. His screen name: 43?9enter (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

User page design

Hello,

Would you mind if I borrowed the design for your user page? It is very well organized and laid-out. InverseHypercube (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem - everything on Wikipedia is freely licenced, so please do got ahead! To be completely honest I swiped the tabs concept from Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Notability! Quite a number of other editors have used the layout and I am flattered that people find it is of use! - Ahunt (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, it is indeed very useful! InverseHypercube (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Well have fun with it. If any of the coding doesn't make sense let me know and I'll be glad to explain or help troubleshoot. - Ahunt (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Spacing in the F-106 page

Hello. In regards to the spacing I put in the article, I merely thought it made the 'Aircraft on Display' section line up better with its corresponding picture. If that's unacceptable, then so be it; I don't have any other suggestions or any strong feelings about the change.Hollingsworth (talk) 05:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. The main problem with introducing extra line returns like that for spacing images is that it will only work at one fixed screen width and probably only in one browser type (ie in Internet Explorer but not Firefox or Chrome, for instance). Anyone who uses a wider screen width that you are will see lots of empty white space. In general it is better to just accept the images where they fall in any given screen width or, if it is critical, then remove some images, move them on the page or into a gallery. - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I did not know that. Thanks for the info! Hollingsworth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC).

No problem, it is probably because I usually view and edit Wikipedia in Chromium (the open source version of Google Chrome) and at a rather wide 1440 pixel screen width that I spot these sort of things in articles. - Ahunt (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI: I moved some images to left and other stuff there to reduce image crowding. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that! I have checked it at screen widths from 800px to 1400px and it looks fine in Chrome/Chromium. - Ahunt (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Question about Wiki Project Aircraft

Does this project include air-crashes and TV Shows like that? Thanks. User:Qantasplanes talk 4:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Good questions! WikiProject Aircraft includes many articles about aircraft crashes, the main page explaining which ones are notable enough to be included in aircraft type articles or stand-alone articles is at WP:AIRCRASH. TV shows including aircraft generally come under other WikiProjects, like TV, although we do collect information at Aircraft in fiction, but only if the appearances are significant (not just a passing appearance) and there are reliable references that support the addition of text. You can note that last article gets a lot of TV, film and especially game cruft added and anything that doesn't cite reliable references doesn't stay in the article for very long! I hope that answers your questions? Let me know if you need more information. - Ahunt (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Questionable source

An editor has been using rotaryaction.com as a reference for several entries. I'm sure he means well, but the source doesn't seem like it passes RS. The very first line of the website homepage says "Welcome to this fan-site devoted to airborne action." and it solicits and accepts user contributions. Everything appears accurate enough, but in all fairness, I can't say it passes RS. I wanted to get your input before I said anything. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Good question! While it is billed as a "fan site", it does seem to have multiple contributors (see their home page at the bottom), subject to editorial assessment of input before posting of information and is run by Pigasus Press who are a publisher of poetry, science fiction a reviews and have been around since at least 1989. The main thing for me is that what they post seems to be accurate and can be verified itself from the movie or TV show. These days when even very reliable news media sites like the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation seem to allow their reporters to post text before the editorial staff even look at the copy (they rely on readers to point out errors and then fix them), Rotary Action doesn't seem too bad in comparison. In reading though Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and WP:SOURCES I don't see that it raises red flags, but if you are concerned you can post a question at on it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. - Ahunt (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• I see some of the contributors, but we don't have any way of knowing which ones they contributed and which ones were the proverbial guy in his mom's basement. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

True, they aren't credited, perhaps that reflects that they are an effort of more than one person, hard to say. To be honest, even the "guy-in-his-Mom's-basement" with a little aviation knowledge can watch a movie DVD and write a fairly accurate account of the use of the aircraft in the film, it isn't that technical to get it right. The website's accuracy seems okay. - Ahunt (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think we're talking about different things. I'm not disputing their accuracy. I'm saying that they won't pass RS. Watching a DVD and writing a description is done on hundreds of blogs that won't get past it either. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this source is probably in the same ballpark as the issue of Joe Baugher's self-published, but generally accurate, website of US military aircraft serials which was gone over extensively at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_89#Joe_Baugher. The conclusion there would probably apply here, that it can be used, but should be replaced with a better ref if one can be found. - Ahunt (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ross R-6

Oops! How embarrassing! Clearly a senior moment - I was aiming at a Burnelli and missed.TSRL (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No sweat, no damage done! Too many tabs open? - Ahunt (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

File:41stElectionPollingResults.png

Something to keep in mind next time you update File:41stElectionPollingResults.png, the shade of green in Template:Green Party of Canada/meta/color has been changed. 117Avenue (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! I checked the new colour linked above. OpenOffice Calc doesn't permit random graph colour inputs, it only has about five different greens, but I'll see how close I can match it. - Ahunt (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't have to be exact. 117Avenue (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Please know that WT:CANADA#New Democrat vs. New Democrats vs. New Democratic will affect your graph. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, by that I think I have it right with "New Democratic"! - Ahunt (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Tesseract

You have been editing the Tesseract (software) article for quite long, and yet by March, 2010 the article featured incorrect outdated data, as the fact that Tesseract didn't support page layout analysis.

I corrected such a piece of wrong data. A minute later, when checking the article back, I noticed you had undone my contribution due to lack of references (while the sources found on 1st reference entry clearly state page segmentation is supported). After removing my contribution, you simply rewrote it your way again lacking references by your standard.

More than one year has passed since Tesseract includes such a feature, and you have been working on that article since much earlier, keeping the wrong outdated information. Tonight, right after I corrected it, you removed my edit and made your own. You are nothing but a mere ripper, and you are not even versed on the topic.

Just a remark from an anonymous user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.147.195.93 (talk)

Thanks for your note here. First off you should have a read of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL if you want to contribute to Wikipedia. If you leave further attacks and insults you will get a formal warning next time. Second if you are going to edit an article and add information over some period of time, rather than in one edit and then either tag the article with an "in use" template or at least write something in the edit summaries to indicate "more to follow" or similar so that other editors will know you are going to make a series of edits; don't just use blank edit summaries. Thirdly, any substantive edits you make are required to conform to the refs already cited or cite new refs that support the text that you add. In this case I reviewed your text, re-read the refs and fixed the article so the text matched the refs cited, which, now that you are apparently done, I will do again. And last if you are going to contribute to Wikipedia on any sort of regular basis I would suggest you open an account so that other editors can see who you are and that you have a trusted history of edits. Since a large number of IP address edits are non-constructive, if not outright vandalism, opening an account will give you the sort of credibility that editing as an IP address won't. - Ahunt (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes

In view of these contributions, your reply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes is requested. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. Will do. - Ahunt (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Cessna 300

You may want to look at Cessna 350 as well - the editor made similar changes there.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - already fixed! Hopefully Cessna will clarify later this month what is going on with both these models. - Ahunt (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts

Would like your thoughts here on adding pics - Thanx Jetijonez (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Carmine Crocco

Thank you very much for your help. Probably i will develop the article in the future. About Laurie Hawn, I've never heard nothing about him, sorry. --Born Again 83 (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ryson ST-100 Cloudster

Always been known as Ryson Cloudster. Ryan cloudster is a new error. All references i can find state Ryson!!

Ryson ST-100 Cloudster

Always been known as Ryson Cloudster. Ryan cloudster is a new error. All references i can find state Ryson!!216.241.47.198 (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC) see [1] The FAA type certifaicate states Ryson!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Petebutt (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Read it carefully. The TC gives the aircraft its designation, which is clearly ST-100 and indicates who the TC holder is, in this case Ryson Aviation Corporation, but it doesn't say who will produce it or what it will be marketed as, or known as. If the TC were the last word on article names, then the Cessna 400 would be called the LC41-550FG, which is what its type certificate says it is. The main ref cited, Soaring magazine, is very clear that it was going to be built by Ryson and called the Ryan ST-100 Cloudster. - Ahunt (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Mauro Solar Riser

Materialscientist (talk) 08:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

SketchUp-like logo

I have now uploaded my own SketchUp-like logo for use in userboxes, which is very similar to the real SketchUp logo, effectively side-stepping the copyright/fair-use issue which you raised. Is that permissible?

I find it laughable that I have wasted 1½ hours making it, as the only reason that I included userboxes on my page was to help others to make better use of my time. But hey-ho, at least I have learned how to upload images.

I may just trawl through WP looking for places where I could provide non-copyright-infringing alternative images! (..maybe that's taking it a bit too far!) Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that, making your own free logo is a good way to deal with the issue. Wikipedia takes copyrights very serious, being based in the USA and therefore under US law they don't have much choice! One important thing is keeping copyrighted logos out of userboxes, as they don't qualify under the copyright law "fair use" provisions and thus put Wikipedia at legal risk when they turn up there. You are more than welcome to make free logos for userboxes anywhere you see that they would be useful. You may find that where logos have been removed in the past that lettering is now used, so that might be a good place to start looking! - Ahunt (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it's perhaps a waste of time to focus on userboxes, but one logo that really irks me is File:Own YouTube logo.svg so I have created and uploaded my own YouTube-like logo. It's a real corker, even if I do say so myself. It's so good, in fact, that I'm not sure if counts as copyright free! Should I make one that's not as good?! Seriously, I'd like to know before I use it anywhere. Thought you might be the one to ask. Also, I seem to have uploaded it differently than my SketchUp-like logo. Any idea what I did different? Kind regards, nagualdesign (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

My latest upload isn't showing up on my watchlist either, even though I did tick 'watch this file' when uploading. I've worked out the difference; To upload my SketchUp logo I used Special:Upload, but to upload my YouTube logo I used Wikipedia:Upload. I've just tried to re-upload it via Special, but I get an unspecified error. Obviously the file names are clashing, and I didn't want to just shoehorn it, so I left it as it is. Any comments would be appreciated. nagualdesign (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally I would think that File:YouTube-like logo.png is far too close the the copyrighted logo to be allowable, but I am not a copyright lawyer, so I can't really judge that! Your YT image is on Commons which is a good thing as it can be used by other language Wikipedias. Freely licenced images can go on Commons, it is only "fair use" images that have to be posted to one specific language Wikipedia for legal reasons. Commons is a separate website, so the image will not show up on your en.wikipedia watch list, but will show up on your Commons watchlist, when you sign in over there. - Ahunt (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Bash (Unix shell)

As a participant in some of the recent discussion, I wonder if you would care to comment an AN3 complaint by Grandscribe. This is how I learned about it. I'm still a newbie, so it's possible I screwed up. Msnicki (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No the person who took it there should have informed you, but didn't. He has been here a long time and knows better than that. - Ahunt (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Opinion polling work

The Red Maple Leaf Award Its not much, but you do do a good honest job keeping it(the opinion poll graph) up to date, keep up the good work Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! It is always nice to be recognized for work, particularly that sort of behind the scenes sort of thing! - Ahunt (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Nelson Aircraft

Adam, I was back researching and expanding the Nelson Aircraft article, and found some discrepancies. I put some comments in Talk:Nelson Aircraft and one in Talk:Nelson Hummingbird PG-185B. Maybe you have some refs that could help here, web searches are not producing enough for me. Thanks so much, Lance. ....LanceBarber (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I will answer on the talk pages. - Ahunt (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

V1 speed

Hi Alan. What do you think of this edit - diff? Previously Balanced field takeoff stated that V₁ was called takeoff decision speed which was incorrect because attaching a name to V₁ was erased from US FAR 25 at amdt 25-92 in 1998, and from US FAR 1.2 about the same time. Since 1998, V₁ has not been given a name, but in FAR 1.2 it is given the expanded explanation currently found at V speeds#V1 definitions.

My thoughts are that takeoff decision speed was no longer correct, and this latest description is not correct either. Do you have a suggestion as to how to refer to V₁ in Balanced field takeoff? Regards. Dolphin (t) 00:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. I have to go by the refs cited. At present these are:

FAR 1.1 which says "V 1 means the maximum speed in the takeoff at which the pilot must take the first action (e.g., apply brakes, reduce thrust, deploy speed brakes) to stop the airplane within the accelerate-stop distance. V1 also means the minimum speed in the takeoff, following a failure of the critical engine at VEF, at which the pilot can continue the takeoff and achieve the required height above the takeoff surface within the takeoff distance."

TC AIM which says "Critical engine failure recognition speed *" and "* This definition is not restrictive. An operator may adopt any other definition outlined in the aircraft flight manual (AFM) of TC type-approved aircraft as long as such definition does not compromise operational safety of the aircraft."

Peppler, I.L.: From The Ground Up, page 327. Aviation Publishers Co. Limited, Ottawa Ontario, Twenty Seventh Revised Edition, 1996. ISBN 09690054-9-0, which says "Critical engine failure speed. The speed above which the take-off is continued, and below which the take-off is abandoned in the event of an engine failure."

I think the current wording in V speeds covers the issue adequently, but it must be noted that while all definitions in use in different countries are similar, they are not exactly the same. In many ways the Peppler definition is the clearest. In looking at Balanced field takeoff, it covers V1 basically, but could use a bit of expansion from the refs above to make it clearer, otherwise I don't see that the text there is there are wrong, just a bit incomplete. The diff edit you refer to isn't exactly wrong, but it didn't really add anything to the clarity needed in an encyclopedia article. I think a re-write of that section in Balanced field takeoff from the refs is needed just for clarity. - Ahunt (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your sound advice. I will refine the section in the way you have suggested. Dolphin (t) 12:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Glad that was helpful! - Ahunt (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:CobraFlightBadge.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:CobraFlightBadge.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Addressed on file page - Ahunt (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Weihe

Very belated thanks for your thoughts on my comments about the English translation of 'Weihe'; the fact is, I've only just worked out how to reply to talk! I hope I've worked it out.........

I first became interested in correcting/editing articles when I saw numerous mistakes in Wikipedia, mainly in foreign languages, but once too that of a young (very, I would say) lady reviewing a film and writing 'try's' for 'tries'. I'm London-born (not Ontario!) living in Australia and am multilingual, thus am very interested in how people express themselves. I'm a federally accredited translator of German in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogriv (talk • contribs) 08:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

About Nicomsoft

I am inexperienced in writing. While I edited the article you have deleted it. When I save the edited version, you have removed it immediately, without reviewing the changes. Once recreate this page - this is not to recreate it many times as you wrote the curator. The curator did not hesitate to delete important changes in another article, I have made. Sorry for my english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlajet (talk • contribs) 13:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't delete your article - I just nominated it for deletion twice and it was reviewed by admins before deleting it on each occasion. Basically the article was WP:SPAM and only used to promote your company and so it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Also as explained in WP:COI you shouldn't be writing articles about your own company as you are in a conflict of interest. If the company were notable (it isn't) then someone else would write an article on it. The article name is now protected so it cannot be recreated. - Ahunt (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

CN tag at CSAR

You've added a "Citation needed" tag to my recent addition to the Combat search and rescue article. I understand that the (eventual?) aim is for everything in WP to be cited, but I'm curious about why this info was singled out for a tag when the article has lots of other uncited info. I could avoid the tag by copying over references from the Seenotdienst article (but as I haven't checked the citations myself should I do this?) or by moving the link to Seenotdienst to the "See also" section and removing the context (but that is less helpful to readers). Personally, I only CN-tag if I think the info is dubious. Any advice ? DexDor (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As per WP:V it needs a ref, that is really all. The rest of the article is relatively well referenced except one item, so I'll see if I can find a ref for that, if you look after this one. - Ahunt (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DucDuckGoSearch.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DucDuckGoSearch.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

NTF - Another editor replaced this with a new image instead of just uploading a new version of the old image, meaning this can be deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Chimes Aviation Academy

You're welcome. Thank you for the renomination; it's definitely appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed when it gave me an error message that said I couldn't delete it because it had just been deleted :-) And yes, the deletion log is long; perhaps you could request that it be create-protected? Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Adam A500

Thanks for updating the A500 article. I was fortunate to receive an email from Frank Principe re: Trinton Aerospace's intentions relative to the A500 and I took the liberty of updating your article. Interesting to note that an article came out today in Avweb indicating that they expect to have a prototype flying in six months that solves the weight problem. Scott Levine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.129.184 (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I saw your addition and just cleaned it up a bit and referenced it. I sent the story to AvWeb and Russ Niles was on his way to do a story on it! I'll now take their story and add some more text using it as a ref. - Ahunt (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see the following AOPA article, which you may want to incorporate into your article. Single-engine configuration and turbo only seem to be new information. http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2011/110421adam_a500_to_rise_again.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.129.184 (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Will do! - Ahunt (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sun n'Fun 2011

Hello again! Yes - the weather was disappointing - as it has been for a while in SE USA and in other other regions. This noticably affected the number and variety of attending aircraft. Luckily, the two days I was there were dry, if sometimes rather overcast. I missed the first day's heavy rain and the mini Tornado on the Thursday. A couple of pilots I spoke to spoke of their having to stop over in the Carolinas and elsewhere whilst the fronts moved through.

The trade show was as good as in the past - but some were later damaged in the very localised strong winds. Aircraft on other parts of the airport were, apparently unaffected. I did not take as many photos as usual - but have added some less common types to unillustrated articles. Best wishes. RuthAS (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello again! I did not know that your wife's name is Ruth, also. That's nice! It's not a very common name now but I don't think that it's old-fashioned, despite its biblical echoes! I send my best wishes to 'Ruth USA' ! We Brits are not used to the severe weather that you have as a downside to the often lovely weather that you experience much of the time. So - I'm not an avid 'hurricane watcher' - except when I'm in the States and checking with 'The Weather Channel' to decide which day to go to Lakeland, or wherever. Clearly some people do chase and film those events - but I'm 'Chicken' in that repect. Kind regards to you both. RuthAS (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops - should have said 'Ruth Canada' or 'Ruth America' . . . sorry! RuthAS (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

Hi Ahunt,

I've recently written my first article on Wikipedia on the Aereon Dynairship, as part of the aviation WikiProject to add missing articles on aircraft. Being very new to writing articles, I knew at the time and can see afterwards now that it was pretty poor. This is just a quick note to say thanks for all your help adding references and citations, and deleting any non substantial evidence or text. I'm sorry that the original article was of such poor quality, but I am trying hard to get better!

Thanks once again and I hope to be working alongside your substantial capabilities again in the future.

Sebread (talk) 10:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)sebread

Notification of AfDs at WP level

Just a note to say that you should post as neutral a notification of an AfD discussion as possible at WPs, whether you are in favour of deletion or retention. I use the format of "The [[Article]] has been [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Article|nominated for deletion]]". I do not see any need to mention who has nominated the article for deletion. Doing so could be seen as incivil or worse. The nominator has their name at the AfD, which suffices. Mjroots (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks for your advice. I don't usually include that, but since it was a second nomination I included the name with the intention of showing that that it was a different nominator this time, but in checking it again I see that it actually was the same nominator. - Ahunt (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know I have tightened up my standard notification wording to make it even more neutral at User:Ahunt/Tags#Notification_of_nomination_for_deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I really do strive to make these things as nonprejudicial as possible. I do believe the Wikipedia system works, as long as enough people get a chance to freely participate then good collective decisions are made. Now I just have to get downtown to the library and find twenty or thirty editions of Janes in the reference section there, to show notability for a particular aircraft manufacturer.- Ahunt (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahunt for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Li chiamarono... briganti!

Can you review this article? I've recently expanded it. As always, thanks for your helping! --Born Again 83 (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem I should be able to give it a good go-over in the next day or two. - Ahunt (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)\\

File:ElectionPollingGraphCanada2011.png - Thank-you!

This is the most useful thing I've come across in this election cycle. Thank-you for creating and publishing it. Rr parker (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I am glad that you have found it of use, it has been very interesting updating it every day! - Ahunt (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

For the list of polls, I removed the COMPAS polls because 1. Its results are so far-off from other polls, giving the conservatives about eight-ten points higher than what other polls have been showing, way outside the MOE; 2. It does not seem notable (a search on Google News showed that the other polls are quoted about 20 times more than the COMPAS poll); and 3. The founder of the company is a well-known conservative and this might explain the incredible disparity.

Since you're doing the graphs I thought I would tell you this. You might want to remove the COMPAS polls from the graphs as well. Educatedseacucumber (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Despite the obvious problems with COMPAS we have a current consensus to include them at Talk:Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2011#COMPAS_poll. You will need a new consensus to remove them. I'll have to put it back until you get the consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

RAM distros

Ahunt, thanks for taking the article on linux distros that run from RAM under your wing. Since you first started editing it, you've continuously improved it and it's become a great resource. I'd give you a barnstar, but since I don't know which to choose, I'm giving you a smile instead:

Hello Ahunt, Waldir has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Keep up the great work! --Waldir ^talk 03:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here - I am glad you think my work on this article has been on the balance more positive than negative! - Ahunt (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sopwith Camel

Apparently you've never watched any Peanuts specials or read the comic... TySoltaur (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, actually I am very familiar with the Peanuts comics and TV shows. The article's scope is real life aircraft that are depicted in works of fiction. In the case of Snoppy, he sits on top of his doghouse and pretends it is a Sopwith Camel, so it is outside the scope of the article. Also, as per the note on the article page, even if this were in the article's scope it would need to cite a reference to be included. Unfortunately this article gets a lot of junk added to it so we have a strong consensus on the talk page to require refs for everything added or it gets removed quickly. - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/REPLACE THIS TEXT WITH ARTICLE NAME

User:Ken keisel has attempted to start a Request for Mediation page concerning (it appears) the Grumman AF and Martin AM pages - as he does not appear to have informed you yet, I thought it would be prudent to warn you.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks but it looks like the page has been deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Rans designs

Thanks for helping out on the Rans Designs article.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all, glad that you thought that was more help than hindrance! You found the details, I just prettied up up a bit - collaboration works! - Ahunt (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:LinuxforuLogo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:LinuxforuLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

NTF: No problem, it has been replaced and can be safely deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"GNOME is a desktop environment, not a platform"

OCRFeeder ist dependent not specifically on Linux but on GNOME's frameworks and the backends; you'l get it to run on Windows, if you get those framework(s)/backends to run there - so...--Krkwrgr (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that is interesting, but that isn't the usual use of "platform". I think that needs to be spelled out in the text if there is a ref that can be added. - Ahunt (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

WP Aircraft in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Aircraft for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Thank you!

(Rgvis (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC))

Ask Ubuntu stuff on omg! ubuntu!

Right hand side on the front page, under trending on twitter. "Ask ubuntu hot questions" and "Ask ubuntu random q"

Reedy (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That is funny - a detailed site search missed that! I'll add it back with the ref. - Ahunt (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I was just scanning the site originally for somewhat relevant stuff to add. No harm done, thanks! Reedy (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for pointing it out. Collaboration works! - Ahunt (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

For the cabal! wikipedia! Reedy (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

References

There are some new links posted in this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Image_to_OCR_Converter Can you review them for WP:N or WP:RS 122.161.239.105 (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have read them all. I am not that sure about the level of reliability of most of them at all. Most of the sources I am not familiar with and can't seem to find much out about, whether they are really WP:SPS or WP:RS. I'm waiting to hear what others have to say about them on the AfD. For a commercial product it certainly has not attracted much in the way of mainstream reviews. - Ahunt (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

PDFCreator

Thanks for your clarifications to this article. You are quite right, this does not appear to be actually free software, due to the DLL being licenced under FairPlay. Your edits sent me to to do some more background reading and sort out the licences, which I have done and added some more text to the article. Your edits actually sorted out one question many people have had over time, which is if there is a malware problem with a free software application then why did no one fork it and fix it? Your research answers that question, so thank you for that work. - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. And I thank you for updating the article to add links to the licenses. :) Unforgettableid (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note - collaboration works! - Ahunt (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Gyrodyne Company of America XRON-I Rotorcycle

I started the Gyrodyne Company of America XRON-I Rotorcycle after searching for the XRON, XRON-I, and GYRODYNE links on wikipedia beforehand, which turned up nothing... after tying in the entire article with the template, references, and links, it was simply blown away with all the text gone and a redirect to a article about a RON? rotocycle. Granted they were first, but does all research and information need to be deleted and a snarky comment sent out? Wouldn't a merge be more appropriate? FlugKerl (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

On the merge potential - you'll have to check with the editor that redirected it for that decision. - Ahunt (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Also this is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Duplicates.3F - you really should add some words there. - Ahunt (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

OCRFeeder

Oh yeess - I like wikis! :-) (English ain't my native tongue, you know. - It's so nice to have people sweeping the floor behind you... ;-) )

Some questions though. - (Feel free to ignore, but sure I'm curious...) Being written in python, having a frontend-backend architecture, using Ghostscript - that's not exactly "features", is it?.. All the availability specifics is not the basic, most interesting stuff for the first section, is it? Why don't you like this stuff under separate headings? And don't you think that the reader normally wants to read the summary of features befor delving into the history stuff?

Some warm greetz from over here. - Keep up the good work!..--Krkwrgr (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, I was just trying to group things logically, but if you feel it could be done differently then please do go ahead. - Ahunt (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:HawkerBeechcraftLogo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:HawkerBeechcraftLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Note to file - it was replaced by an SVG version so can be deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks Ahunt for your little corrections on my userboxes ^^

Offiikart (Talk)

No problem, glad that was helpful! - Ahunt (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ahunt. You have new messages at Walter Görlitz's talk page.
Message added 14:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Ubuntu releases - OpenOffice.org no longer available

Hello, regarding this change:

OpenOffice.org packages are still available, however, they are only transitional packages to LibreOffice, and not OpenOffice.org it self. See for example [2] (sizes of built deb files), or [3]. E_rulez (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the explanation. I didn't see that on Launchpad, but I will fix it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I need a little advice

Greetings Ahunt,

I am working on an article in my sandbox about the Bennett BTC-1, which currently in the mainspace is a redirect to the Globe BTC-1, (the 4th and last) name of this aircraft. I have quite a bit of history to add about this aircraft, from a very reputable source. My question is this: I want to expand the Globe BTC-1 article, but with its original Bennett BTC-1 name. What is the correct way of going about this? Should the Globe article be changed to a redirect to the Bennett article, which then becomes the actual article? I am a newbie editor, and there are lots of customs here of which I am not aware, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes. Thanks, Buster40004 Talk 03:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Probably the best way to tackle this is to add your new text and refs to the Globe BTC-1 article and then look at moving it to the new title. On WikiProject aircraft the naming guideline is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft). In general that indicates that the article should be named Manufacturer-Designation-Name for the main manufacturer that built them. It also notes that controversies should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I would suggest that after you have added your text and refs to the article that you propose moving it on the article talk page and then see what consensus can be reached. Keep in mind, as per WP:SILENCE that if no one objects over a week or so then that constitutes a consensus (i.e. no objections). Hope that helps? - Ahunt (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks,

I know the templates are in place on the Globe article, so I will poke my text and refs where called for.

Buster40004 Talk 18:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds, good - have fun! - Ahunt (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it didn't take all that long as I had most of it organized and ready to go in my sandbox. I have placed my proposal to rename this article on the talk page. The article is currently rated as a Stub, and ask that it be reviewed for upgrade to at least Start. Regards, Buster40004 Talk 02:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft images

I am bowing out of the ongoing mudfight about Aircraft in Fiction image removal. It seems to me that there is too much ego involved in this dispute, although the incipient combatants are busy trying to deny it. It is sad that editors who have done nothing to improve the article over the last year or two are now trying to ramrod their notions of what is appropriate for the page. As I learned many years ago, "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig." For the record, I support having the images, but I have better things to do with my time than argue with Hammersoft, who clearly has no interest in a real dialogue to reach a consensus... Mark Sublette (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here! Makes sense to me - I have been staying out of it until the dust settles, then we can sort out what needs to be done to dress up the article. - Ahunt (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox general

Template:Infobox general has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Pou variants

Here's something to ponder, perhaps for wikiproject aircraft. I tend to interpret "variants" as being closely-defined "proper" named versions of a parent design. Since most homebuilts of the past have almost always been unique, ie one variant per example, perhaps my "variations" or something else might be more appropriate for that class of aircraft? PeterWD (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a thought - right now the project sees any variations on the design as "variants", whether official or not. - Ahunt (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

you are being ridiculus by using linux on the GNewSense article

the maintainers of the distro call it GNU/Linux and so should wikipedia just like Debian GNU/Linux . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaukikyo (talk • contribs) 16:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. There is a large and longstanding consensus on Wikipedia that we use the most common name which is Linux. If you don't agree then then the correct procedure is to start a discussion on changing this on Talk:Linux, but first you need to read all the 32 archives for that page, plus Talk:Linux/Name and Talk:Linux/Referring to this article. - Ahunt (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for your help over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chromium_(web_browser)#Is_this_a_Google_project.3F! Nathan2055talk 22:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, it was delicious! - Ahunt (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

FL Technics

Thank you for your work on FL Technics. The current version of the article is better than my last revision of it. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! I thought your changes were a great improvement. Since you took down the CSD I thought we could fix it up, remove all the spammy language, add the logo etc. Feel free to attack it some more! Collaboration works! - Ahunt (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Stamer Lippisch SG-38 Zögling

I am confused by this article. It appears to combine information on the Stamer Lippisch Zögling (1926) and the Schulgleiter SG 38 (1938), which are two very different designs. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This is already under discussion at Talk:Stamer Lippisch SG-38 Zögling, so it would probably be best if you commented there, since it is an article-specific issue. - Ahunt (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)