User talk:Joefaust

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Orphan work

[ ] Manned kiting Hang gliders under tow by a motor boat or powered airplane is a form of manned kiting and these then are within hang gliders that are powered.
The article is absent yet in Wikipedia.


Thanks, Gerry. Good to be on the team. Love has blinded GH to the huge flows of merit from others.

Be well, Joe


Joe, Thank you for your valuable contributions to the Powered hang glider history section and History of the flex wing hang gliding. (I am actually thinking to address the duplicated information and refer the history section of the powered harness to the main History of HG article. Your long experience as a HG magazine editor during the early HGing years has brought a factual and contextual perspective to the HG history articles in Wikipedia. I have heavily relied on material given to me by Ken de Russy and on my personnal research so I am extremely happy to see you active in Wikipedia, doing what you do best. I first thought that editor G.H. had it all figured out, and I was happy to have someone else's contribution to the article, until I realized something was terribly wrong with him on persisting on deleting about 150 years of HGing history between Otto Lillienthal and J. Dickenson. His mass deletions of well researched, documented and referenced material tresspassed into vandalism, while claiming credit to the previously patented and NASA-researched Flexible wing invention to JD. So vandalism and posting unreferenced (false) statements prompted me to revert his edits and call the attention of Wikipedia administrators, who have helped keep him in line.

I am using all available resources, including telephone calls and e-mails to still-living pioneers to clarify the evolution of the flex wing hang glider, and am still reviewing how influential was JD's adaptation of the Rogallo wing. I definitevly can not make the large leap of faith and just take GH's word (without references) that JD invented the flex wing years after Rogallo and NASA's publicized developments. Thank you for coming on board Wikipedia and correct many facts, I hope you don't mind I do minor formatting edits to your notes just to keep the article most presentable.

Gerry Farell BatteryIncluded 16:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Onedown.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Onedown.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Carl S. Bates

A tag has been placed on Carl S. Bates requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 22:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hangon tag

Your {{hangon}} tag for the article Carl S. Bates keeps getting removed because it's not needed. The request for speedy deletion had already been removed by another editor.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your request for review of your article

Actually, none of the cautions may be removed yet. I visit your article every day, to see how things are going. If you allow me, I can try to organize the article, so that we can remove at least a couple of tags. Providing references and a good introductory paragraph for people unfamiliar with the subject are two nice things you can do for now. Victao lopes (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks Victao. Joefaust (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
But do you want me to organize it or not? Victao lopes (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll do it then. Victao lopes (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Victao, I am not sure how to communicate; the talk pages of mine or yours still feels odd to me as I am soooo e-mail oriented! I do not have confidence that you would read this note here. SURE, you are welcome to organize any page where I work; I thought that was the common wiki thing to do. Tweaking collaboratively seems the way to go. If the re-orgs lose something that is fundamentally important, then another round of editing. Aim: serve the reader/visitor... Joefaust (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Otto1891.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Otto1891.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We requires this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Otto1892.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Otto1892.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of your article

Yes, it seems to have asserted notability. I'm removing it for now. I'm also removing the "orphaned" tag, because we now have enough articles linking to TCF. You see? As time passes, less issues are found on your work! ;) Victao lopes (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing

Hello, I've noticed from your edits of kite that you've been using a trial-and-error process in an effort to get things right. That kind of hands-on approach is without a doubt the only way to learn how to do things — and there's quite a lot to learn! However, rather than saving each of your attempts, it's much better to make liberal use of the "show preview" button, which allows you to see the results of your edit before you hit the "save page" button. That way, all of those edits that aren't quite right don't clog up the edit history (something you will come to appreciate once you've been around for a while). Hope this has been helpful, and... good luck editing! -- Alan Liefting-talk- 01:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Notability of Domina Jalbert

A tag has been placed on Domina Jalbert requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. B110 communicate (that means talk) 22:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kite

Hi Joe

Please provide the references for the extensive additions you have made to the kite page. You should have these ready before you make changes - it's pointless saying that they are coming - your edits will get deleted until they are referenced, see WP:REF. Please rewrite the sections you have added to meet Wikipedia's requirements at WP:MOS, in particular you need to define what a kite is before you launch into the description of what variants there are. Don't refer to "this article", this is a violation of the MOS, and unlike every other WP page. There's no need to rush your changes into Wikipedia. Do your research, fully develop the text with references in a subpage in your user area. When the text is mature, add them to the page. You can ask for mentoring at the help desk to develop your capacity as an editor. As it is you've left the kite page in a mess - it just looks terrible. Please fix it. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 13:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Good points; thanks. Learning.... Altered the first reference of "This article"...nice point. Citations put today in a few sections. Feel free to add citations; losing verifiable and citable mattter during hang-on would be a loss to readers and the article. The article is far more developed than how I found the article; the article is more mature in research than how I found it; the job is not done; other editors are involved; I invited one expert to post more on his water kite or hydro kite professional knowledge with references. Feel free to format any mess you find; I will do the same; I will keep at the same task; but developing pertinent sections need not wait until everything is super polished, I would guess from the daring urge that Wikipedia promotes; access to verifiable data seems important--pretty can follow by those who like to pretty-up articles. I am not sure what "terrible" means, but I will keep working on what seems to concern you; sections and photos, content, and paragraphing are being refined. I ache for more public-domain kite photographs and drawing. An introductory definition was placed up at the lead. Then a full section for definitions (not a static or one-sided matter!) about "kite" has been started; much more verifiable matter is in culture for the definitions section. There are hundreds of definitions that are citable; the section need not wait until someone cites any certain number of distinct definitions of "kite" that are out there in literature. Visitors will be served well with both content and pretty as many editors develop the article; kite is not a static topic; each year kite is expanded with new technology and application. Thanks for the synergy, Clappingsimon! Best of lift to you and yours, Joefaust (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Joe
I'm afraid I had to take out your edits. When I started looking in Google for citable sources on plasma kites; soil kites etc I couldn't find any. If you want to make suitable cited and cross-referenced edits, go ahead, but I'll check each one for external verifiability. Please don't add original research, wikipedia aims to be a reference. You need to be quite clear that what you are adding is widely understood and verifiable. This is one of the key policies of Wikipedia. Hope you understand, ask at the help desk if you can't understand why. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 14:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Request for clarification: You mention that something that Wikipedia requires "widely understood" quality of verifiables. That was not my understanding; do you have a reference for the "widely understood" requirement, if it is so. My sense is that people use an encyclopedia in order to find out verifiable things that indeed might not be "widely understood." I am looking for such discussion, but maybe you have that at your figertips. Thanks for the focus, attention, and time. Lift, Joe Joefaust (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC) I am still not sure how to give message to you, Clappingsimon; so I left this same message on your talk page and here on my talk page. Thanks. Joefaust (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Joe
I'm analyzing your edits using Google. Google hits are an accepted way of determining if an assertion has notability in Wikipedia. The following statements you have made fail this test.:
  • non-man made kites: [[1]]
  • natural kites: [[2]]
  • kites not made by man: [[3]]
  • garden orb spider kites silk: [[4]]
  • kites made by robots [[5]]
  • kites in space: [[6]]
  • kites in plasma: [[7]]
  • kites in soil: [[8]]
  • kites in solids: [[9]]
  • hydro kite: [[10]]
  • glacial kite (dubious geological survey link): [[11]]
  • alternates to kite moorings: [[12]]
re your note on: "Approximately 2800 years ago the kite was evident" - this is a cited reference from Encyclopedia Brittanica derived from historical Chinese writings.
I'm afraid all these changes will be rv'd.
DO NOT DO THIS STYLE OF EDITING IN WIKIPEDIA.
It says on EVERY 'Editing' page: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". Make sure yours are.
Cheers Clappingsimon talk 23:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Joe
The history section was written by another editor from the Britannica article after much bickering amongst Wikipedia editors about the origins of the kite. Britannica was written by experts in the field, but if you have another source equally or more reputable who says something different, put it in as a dissent. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 02:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; my learning Wikipedia routes have not yet matured enough to know the dissent routes; it will take some time and should be very interesting. The challenge could probably be solved by softening the claim...even by experts; a little change in wording could probably solve the logical challenges; claiming something for certain is way different than noting that so and so expert believes something; being first inventor is a very challenging logical claim; if kites were evident 2800 years ago, then could there not have been a kite 3000 years ago; but even using "approximately" in the phrasing does not solve the several difficulties when tied to "invented" as local invention verses global invention comes into play and may need to be clarified in order to leave open something that is not locally closed matter; respect for prior researchers would bring up just how they were phrasing things relative to local or global invention, and how they left or not left the matter open to earlier invention. Only when I have done sufficient research on the first-ever kite will I put forward a dissent; meanwhile logic is a tool used in editing and presenting what is in the literature; since the first invented kite is in dispute, then it probably should be footnote or cited if claimed. so that a reader can soften the claim which logically must be left fuzzy, not certain, unless carefully qualified. When did the first kite appear in human culture? When did kite first appear in history? Those are two different questions. But both have uncertain answers. Well-discussed history is different from yet-to-be-found history; so a clarification is needed on contentious claims. Did a non-Chinese human make and fly a kite before any Chinese kite makeer/flier? Maybe yes, maybe no. When a claim is made, perhaps someone has written that a Chinese persoon was the first human to fly a kite; but I would hope they would soften that by giving dated evidence and simply say, "Up to this kind of evidence, it seems that such and so was first." On fuzzy matters, fuzzy logic works to respect potentialities. One of us or some other editor might go ahead and give the citation for the claim about invention or give reference to where the matter was discussed; when I get time, I will also work on that point, but others might do a good job at giving some reference for the invention dimension so stated in the present article Kite. Good to work with you. And I am happy you enjoy using Google to check verifiable; however, using Google can occur at various levels and awarenesses; easily one combination for a target often proves inadequate; working alternate combinations, synonyms, antonyms, related phrasing..can bring related results that show increased notability for a matter. And it is nice to be challenged, as that will bring forward higher quality of the article Kite. I can read your friendly tutorials without the all CAPS yelling mode; I am assuming your good faith; I am assuming you are not committing sockpuppetry for some slant; and I am assuming you are not pushing a narrow POV knowingly. However, it is easy for me to see that the hang-on time is on a short time fuse with you, yet Wikipedia urges hang-on time on non-biography objects like kite; so, I wonder if you might give more hang-on time while some discussion or time to work occurs on things you might put on notice; I was clearly respecting your cautions as I worked to correct matters, but your given hang-on time was shorter than I needed; I notice that in many articles in Wikipedia there are some year-old cautions not cleared; so I am wondering what is your interest in Kite that has what I feel is too-short-of-hang-on time. Do you have any personal amount of time on inanimate object articles for contentious matters for hang-on work/discussion tie. Joefaust (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Joe. Delay making the edit until you have a reference. Then make the edit with the inline citation. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 04:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Joe Well at least you put a reference for the earliest kite estimate. Unfortunately it says 2200 years ago, which is 600 years later than 2800 years ago, not earlier. I'll restore the original. Regarding non-man made kites, you have yet to convince me that they exist. Just claiming the FAA does is insufficient - you actually have to give the FAA regulation or publication covering non-man-made kites. If you can't provide a reference, you can't claim it is true. Please refer to no original research. Regarding description of styrofoam, this is covered on the styrofoam page. There is no need to give this detail, the link is sufficient. You probably think I'm being too strict, but put up verifiable information and you'll find I agree with your edits. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 14:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Joe. Good. Tal and Clive are old friends of mine, happy to see them being cited in WP. Please provide a reference for this notion of hang gliders as kites. I understand that this is the way you see it, but you need to provide a source. My understanding was they were considered aircraft more akin to the gliders of Wasserkuppe. BTW the inline comments should be moved to the talk page, it isn't appropriate to hide a POV in the mainspace. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 09:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kite (Styrofoam-only)

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Kite (Styrofoam-only), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kite books

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Kite books, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paravane (water kite)

Hi Joefaust, if you are still working on Paravane (water kite), consider putting the Template:underconstruction on it so it doesn't get deleted for being a bit empty. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft structures

Hi, I see you have been editing this article recently, do you mind if I have a go at tidying it? I think it needs a major strip out and reorganisation (which may include your edits), the creator seems to have left the project in 2006. Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nimbus227, your work on Aircraft structures is invited; have a robust go at it! The article deserves high quality. It is my hope that the article will include sections that respects all kinds of aircraft structures that play robust roles in human culture: arrows, boomerangs, kites, gliders, toss-in-air toys, Magnus-effect rotating aircraft structures, dynamic-soaring double-kite structures, RC aircraft structures, balloons, kytoons, gyros, and more. Joefaust (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back so quick. I was actually thinking of something much more simple which concerned only fixed wing full size aircraft, similar to Aircraft flight control systems which I have been working on but is not quite there yet. I think it could also be renamed Aircraft structure or a new one created to just concentrate on this, whoever does it will have a fairly large job on their hands. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Nimbus227, a constraining focus just on fixed-wing large aircraft would bypass the rich meaning of "aircraft structures". A separate distinct article on your interest would allow Aircraft Structures to remain a root meta article with branching to sub-articles. There are structures on rotary-wing aircraft, flexible-wing aircraft, morphable-wing aircraft, small aircraft, toy aircraft, unmanned aircraft, etc. Have you considered an article of title:

Structures of large fixed-wing aircfaft or something like that? Visiting readers to Aircraft structures ought to be able to reach all significant aircraft structures from the aritle as lead. Joefaust (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the title and layout of any new aircraft structure article needs some thought. You can probably see that I was an airframe engineer for a while, I also build R/C models and have some references on their structure if and when you need them. I've spent too long on here again today!!!! Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Powered kites

Hi. In the Aircraft article section on on Unpowered aircraft, you comment that certain hang gliders are true kites, and you include powered types. But this is a section on unpowered types, so clearly some correction is needed.

The kite article does not seem to mention powered kites (not the same thing as power kites!) so I have a genuine question: can a powered aircraft be a kite or are all kites by definition unpowered? -- Steelpillow (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Steelpillow, It is good to have your reading, review, questions. There is a lot of work to do on the family of articles in the Kites category. Clarifying things is important; and collaborative work seems to finally get things done! Your questions will help things.

To the point: A kite has a set of wings and a set of kite lines. The tension through the kite line is always powered by something (moving earth anchor relative to the airstream, falling payload hooked to the kite's kite line system, payload or pilot that is hung that is powered by a powered harness, towing vehicle, running human kite operator, river raft pushed by the moving water that is falling toward the sea, etc.); that power translates through the kite line to the kite's wing with that wing's airframe. When the wing with its airframe is unpowered, then there is the expected common sense that the kite's wing is unpowered.

Differently, if someone joins a propelling power system to the kite's airframe/wing, then the kite's airframe/wing becomes "powered" and no longer just depends on the tension arriving through the kite's kite line; ultralight aircraft that have an engine joined to the airframe become when propulsion is "on" a powered aircraft in the common sense.

So, yes, it is appropriate to put the kite hang glider that has the pilot in a powered harness in the unpowered kite section. This retains for the paraglider that has the propelling engine causing tension in the paraglider's kite line set; the wing of the paraglider is still unpowered.

Consider another category: Have a kite staked to a tree trunk. The wind is blowing quite well; the kite's wing sustains just fine. Now keep that kite using the tension brought to its bridle by the kite line. But add to the kite's airframe an engine; let that engine's power cause the kite to do powered circles while the wind is still being used to power the basic lift of the kite's wing and the kite's added power system. Since I do not yet have a citation for this circumstance, then it cannot properly be put into Wikipedia. But this would be a powered kite formally.

Summarily, in a deep sense (not the common sense) kites are fundamentally powered always by something in order to fly; the toy kite in air is powered by tugging power system that presents a net tension through the kite's kite line. But the common culture does not call the kite a powered aircraft; the common culture neglects the basic needed power or force that arrives through the kite line. With that neglect, then the powered harness must also be neglected while the common culture would then still have the powered harnessed hang glider kite as a true unpowered kite. Differently, put the proplelling engine tightly coupled to the kite's wing airframe and presto chango...get a powered aircraft that stops being a hang glider pure and simple but a hybrid aircraft as the hung pilot's mass still is a kite-anchor propelling situation; but since the propelling engine is in the airframe of the wing, then the system is considered to be a powered aircraft and not a simple kite any further. Not simple kites: jet or electric or liquid fueled engine coupled to the airframe of the wing; when the power is on, then the system is a powered aircraft. That same aircraft with engine off...if powered by the falling mass of a hang glider pilot hung from a kite line...becomes just a free-flight kite without wing/airframe powering, but just tension from the falling pilot....thus in such stage: true unpowered kite of the hang glider sort.

In harmony with the above: hook a sailplane (no propelling from the sailplane) to a ground truck or a powered tug airplane....During the tug the sailplane is a true unpowered kite; the sailplane during tug using the kite line's tension to set up a lift/drag situation around its wings to stay aloft. Take that same sailplane and put it in a heavy wind and tie the tug kite line to a tree trunk and watch the sailplane still kite. The tree trunk is pulled along with the rotation of the earth while the wind is going the oppositive direction; the power of the earth/wind coupling sets up the tension with the sailplane coupling and flies. The sailplane as a kite in tug cannot physically prove what is providing the tension: airplane, truck, tree-trunk....the tension is the same while the sailplane remains nude of any onboard propelling system. So, being tugged by the airplane or tree trunk, the sailplane in tug is a true kite. But then when the sailplane is on its own, it becomes a true glider (not a kite, because the sailplane is not using the tension delivered by a kite line (a part needed for a kite to be a kite); rather the fall of the mass of the entire sailplane gives the power to fly....gravity engine! But common culture neglects the gravity situation as a power and says that the sailplane is a unpowered aircraft. So, consistency is upheld.

... Joefaust (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Joe, thanks for the thoughtful answer. I don't know enough about the modern kiting scene to edit anything about them, but FWIW here are my thoughts. What you rightly call the common culture is pretty much an engineer's viewpoint, i.e. that "powered" is used to imply some form of mechanically active drive system. "Unpowered" implies an aircraft that gains its lift and/or propulsion passively in some way. So if one were to attach an electrical generator with a propeller on its shaft onto a kite, that generator would be wind-powered. But the kite itself is unpowered. Somewhat in contradiction the Flettner autogyro reconnaissance craft, towed aloft by German U-boats in WW2, are regarded as unpowered kites even though the rotation of the wing was wind-powered. Never trust an engineer ;-\ . Maybe kite people have a different culture from the common one, I don't know. Anyway, Wiki policy is to reflect the appropriate culture rather than what you or I might prefer to think. -- Steelpillow (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Guy, thanks. Very clear; and nice example for indicating the fickle engineering expressions! I will watch for the careful distinctions and support WP policy. The powered harness in the hang glider kite is very emphatically considered distinct from the bonding an engine to the same wing; the pilot can run or be chest towed or decide to be thrusted as he or she flies the kite; differently, a wing mounted with an engine is there....and the pilot can decide to hook his kite line to the engined wing and fly the powered aircraft. Thanks for the discussion. The active and passive will come into play. I've no knowledge for the wing of the paragliders being powered; the article links powered paragliding; but in the kite culture, kitists see kites where there are; paraglider culture see the active powering of the pilot as forming a powered aircraft; same with the powered Snyder-based square Jalbert parachute powering. Joefaust (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Now that's an interesting one. Power the pilot and not the wing - you have a powered aircraft all right, but is the whole aircraft a powered kite or is the wing an unpowered kite and the aircraft something else? -- Steelpillow (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Steelpillow, you may have it resolved: Pilot is powered; pilot decides to hook into an unpowered kite (framed or not...as in paraglider wing) and forms a integral system that is respected as a powered aircraft system, as all of the matter is flying through the air. Differently would be the thrusting engine coupled to the airframe as in ultralight and DC-10 where the pilot rides a powered wing/airframe. Joefaust (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kites (online stores)

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Kites (online stores), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)