User talk:The.aviation.expert/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mentor Help Old

would a small paragraph about how a firm started and how they began to become successful be a suitable thing to put in a history section? The.aviation.expert (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. Yes, that's the sort of thing that should be in a history section, but I think you may have it backwards. The first thing you need is reliable sources which discuss the company and their history. If you can find say a newspaper article which reviews the company (does more than mention in passing) that'd be a good start. Have a read of identifying reliable sources to give you an idea of what sort of sources we'd be looking for. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It contains the information from employees, other company's and owner also true dates? I have read a 285 page book about how it happened so quite knowledgeable on the subject I also have statistics on paper ? The.aviation.expert (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Information from the employees is not of any help here - there is no way that's a reliable source.

Similarly, you being "quite knowledgeable" is of a little help for the style of writing required - however you may be able to cite the book with the information. May I ask what the book is? Worm^TT · (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Eddie Stobart:The Story
What ive wrote the revolution began in 1946 when John Stobart bought his first tractor and he began expanding his contracting work. Doing auricular jobs for farmers. Eddie Stobart, John’s son (Not to be mistaken for Edward) began working for his dad. He also earned money by chopping wood and selling it. As he grew older was given assets to the business, and he decided to buy a second hand lorry to transport the farming vehicles, but it wasn’t a good buy so he bought a new one. Eventually he had 3 Lorries, 3 tractors, 3 spreaders and a JCB. Edward arrived and he was occupied by money from a young age. In 1970 he bought 8 articulated Lorries and the company had 2 new share holders. Edward moved into premises in carline in 1976 they began getting orders from a large company called metal box and but later they got a full deal. from building up deals it built up vehicle numbers and depots Eddie Stobart was and still is on the road of success

There is already an article on Edward Stobart Regards Teapotgeorge^Talk 13:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean The Eddie Stobart Story by Hunter Davis [1] - Well, there's already an article on Eddie Stobart, which has a very comprehensive and well sourced history section. I should point out that comments like "it all started when" are not really an encyclopedic way of writing, we are looking for a more formal tone. Perhaps you could have a look at that article, see what you think is missing and then mention it here? Worm^TT · (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I see you've changed "It all started when" to "The revolution began" - why not just change it to "John Stobart bought his first tractor in 1946 and expanded into contract work"? This is just a stylistic suggestion, I hope it's clear that this text won't actually be used... Worm^TT · (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, and yes The eddie stobart page is already well stocked but do you know any pages without much info that are worth editing The.aviation.expert (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia currently has 6,929,610 articles, and most of them need improving. What interests you? Worm^TT · (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Technology or aircraft The.aviation.expert (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's a whole project on aviation - I'm sure we can find something for you to do there! Worm^TT · (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you think adding a history to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arion_Lightning using http://www.flylightning.net/history.html as a source will be ok? The.aviation.expert (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No. That is a primary source. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 14:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Plans began in 2004 by Nick Otterback, Pete Krotje and Ben Krotje as they felt there was need for an aircraft with a luxury appearance, admirable handling and was worth the price. $100,000 though for a small kit plane, doesn't seem to go along with these ambitious price plans. They spent months researching and designing. when they decided for this design they sent the plans for it to be constructed. By late 2005 all the parts had been tested and later in 2006 it took to the skies for the first time. The.aviation.expert (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, you've certainly improved your writing, but it does sound a bit like advertising still. I would be expecting you to find words better than the unquantifiable word "good". Also, as Simple Bob pointed out, the source you are using is a primary source. Perhaps you could try searching the Google News archives for topics related to the aircraft? Or maybe even Google books? They're both great resources for the budding researcher. If you've got some time, the best place to look is your local library, where you can look back through old magazines or other books to find useful information. No one said writing on wikipedia is easy! But that is a huge improvement on what you were writing a few days ago! Worm^TT · (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette

One suggestion I have is that you start to follow talk page guidelines a little more. This includes signing your posts with four tildas ~~~~ - and replying by increasing the number of indentations using a colon :. This leads to better flowing conversations. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Mentor Help

Plans began in 2004 by Nick Otterback, Pete Krotje and Ben Krotje as they felt there was need for an aircraft with a luxury appearance, admirable handling and was worth the price. $100,000 though for a small kit plane, doesn't seem to go along with these ambitious price plans. They spent months researching and designing. when they decided for this design they sent the plans for it to be constructed. By late 2005 all the parts had been tested and later in 2006 it took to the skies for the first time. In 2007 Earl Ferguson set a record for the quickest time for a flight from Savannah to San Diego in a piston engine landplane weighing between 1,102 and 2,205 pounds using this aircraft. Renewed The.aviation.expert (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned thankyou for your support on getting back on track with wikipedia. I appreciate your comments and I cant wait for full access to be given to my account :) User:Aviation.expert 15:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad, you seem to have improved significantly over the past 24 hours. I'll have a think about unblocking you on a few conditions over the next couple of hours. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks User:Aviation.expert 09:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, I've been quite busy. Now, as you may or may not know, I've adopted quite a few editors over the past year and the vast majority of them have turned out very well. I happen to think adoption is a great thing, and that Demiurge has decided to put himself forward to adopt you is admirable. However, since you've gotten off to a bad start, I'm afraid we've got to put you on quite a short leash, temporarily. I understand that you are eager, but I ask that you try to tone down your WP:BOLD edits, so that we can ensure that you're doing the best job for the encyclopedia. So here's what I propose, assuming

• You have not edited from any other accounts since my ultimatum yesterday
• You understand that you need to exercise more care over your edits - to ensure that they meet with Wikipedia policy
• You will undertake adoption by Demiurge, respecting that he is trying to help

I am willing to unblock you. I will also be willing to re-block you, if you violate any of these assumptions. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand the above, thanks User:Aviation.expert 11:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In which case, I have now unblocked your account. I understand that Demiurge has some ideas as to where to focus your work in the short term and I expect he'll be posting here soon. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Am I aloud to remove some of the top content from this page now? User:Aviation.expert 11:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happier if you left it up there for say 7 days? The sock puppet case is still ongoing. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcoming people

It would be better if you focused on your own editing skills - things such as adding properly formatted references using {{cite web}} and {{cite web}} - before you set about welcoming people to Wikipedia and giving them guidance on how to be good editors. Get a hundred or so article space contributions under your belt so that you know what you are doing and then set about helping others. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 14:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to fathom out why a new user User:Minnie9364 would as their second ever edit ask User:The.aviation.expert for advice???Teapotgeorge^Talk 14:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I know that User:The.aviation.expert has a real life friend who he convinced to edit on Wikipedia. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Honest guys it isnt me I saw this user on recent changes and on the lines it was to change description I said I would help. I have changed my ways with wikipedia and no longer Brake any rules set User:Aviation.expert 15:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

OK I see now. Kind regards.Teapotgeorge^Talk 15:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Like I just said on my talk page, focus on just one thing e.g. contributing content to articles. When you have that pegged, perhaps then you can branch out into combating vandalism, nominating articles for deletion (or rescuing them), and welcoming people. Simply put don't run before you can walk. Think "wax on, wax off" for a couple of weeks. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 15:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Extra accounts

If you've ever used any accounts other than those already listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacobga, then I suggest you name them there and undertake never to edit from them again. If you haven't, it's fine to ignore this message. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

No, Demiurge1000 I have my account on track and I have no need to sockpuppet the accounts listed are the only accounts, to be honest I dont remember aircraft expert but after checking history i agree i created that during my sock puppety period since i agreed to the terms set by worm that turned I have followed all rules. Thanks for your concern User:Aviation.expert 15:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, good,; hopefully by that you mean that there weren't any other extra accounts created before you agreed to those terms, either. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

No other accounts over than the ones listed. User:Aviation.expert 15:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Arion Lightning edits - feedback

It's great that you've successfully added some sourced info to the Arion Lightning article. Here's some feedback on what happened, and why, and how to make it even better.

From the history of the article, I can see that you added the information about the plane being used to set that record; Teapotgeorge then indicated that a citation was needed. You correctly discussed on the talk page whether the {{citation needed}} template was still required after you added some information. Then, after you added the extra information, Teapotgeorge removed the template himself. Perfect! (People who add templates won't always remove them themselves, but for the time being it's best to be cautious and take things slowly.)

Independent sources

At the moment, the reference you've added is to the plane manufacturer's own newsletter. Now, this is just about acceptable, since we can be pretty sure that they're not just making it up (they quote the National Aeronautic Association, which is an independent reliable source, in the newsletter). However, Wikipedia encourages editors to use completely independent sources wherever possible. I did put a link for one of those on your talk page, but it get mislaid somewhere along the way. Here it is again; http://www.t-g.com/story/1321526.html Online versions of newspapers like this are good independent sources because it's their responsibility to check the facts - they have a named reporter who is responsible for writing the story, and an editor responsible for the edition. (Although normally we would avoid using papers like The Sun as sources, because although they're more or less independent, they don't have a good reputation for being reliable.)

Now, if we want this Shelbyville Times-Gazette reference all neatly laid out, we would use a citation template. And it would look something like this: <ref>{{citation|newspaper=****|last=****|first=****|date=****|title=****|url=****|accessdate=****}}</ref> Each of the ****, except the last one, is a piece of information from the webpage - see if you can fill them all in and add the citation to the article. "last" and "first" are just the names of the reporter, and "url" is the link the webpage is at. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

So for example after filling in the reporter's first name, it would look like this; <ref>{{citation|newspaper=****|last=****|first=Brian|date=****|title=****|url=****|accessdate=****}}</ref> --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback

The change you made looks good, but you do still need the <ref> and </ref> around it, even when using the citation template. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Perfect, it works now! As you can see, it looks a lot more professional in a citation template than just as a single link. It also helps because if, ten years from now, the newspaper gets rid of their website, or moves their website, people would still (in theory) be able to find the old newspaper article because you've put the extra details in. Good job. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Godley railway station, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Also, in case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on Talk:Godley railway station, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Teapotgeorge^Talk 12:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Photographs

If you add a photograph to an article, be sure that it has encyclopaedic value. A puppy buried under a blanket and some toys, or two dogs' faces through a car window don't add value to an article. Wikipedia is not a place to push pictures of your pets or family snaps. Even when you have what you consider is a good image, don't "spam" it across lots of articles. Put it into the most appropriate article, don't try to find every article that it might be relevant to and add it. That said, one of your train pics was quite good so I'm certainly not going to revert its addition. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 14:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your feedback User:Aviation.expert 14:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Automatic talk page archiving

Hi, I hope this is OK with you, but I've set up automatic archiving for your talkpage. (Or at least... I have so long as I did it right!) What this means is that any discussions whose last reply was more than 7 days old, will get automatically moved to an archive. This is a good way to stop the page filling up with warnings and discussions and so on, without needing to manually delete them.

You can change it to a different value than 7 days, by changing the 7d in the config at the top of your talk page, to 10d or 14d or whatever. However, please don't set it to less than 7d just yet, as Worm has asked for some things to be kept for now.

Equally, if you strongly prefer not to have automated archiving, you can just remove the config section from the top of this page. However, I do recommend keeping it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I modified the counter, it should be set at one. You can also consider adding {{Archive box |auto=yes |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot III |age=7 |units=days}} to the top of your page above your archive code. In addition, make sure anything that you would like to get placed on your talk page permanently is placed above the archive code. On the same note, I moved your archive code to below "Please leave your message below" Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys :P User:Aviation.expert 10:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Manchester Riots 2011

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Manchester Riots 2011. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - 2011 England riots. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at 2011 England riots - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Warfieldian ^(talk) 21:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, after searching I couldn't originally find this page, I understand why it is to be deleted thanks User:Aviation.expert 21:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Aviation articles needing improvements

Hi The.aviation.expert, I hope everything is going OK. I thought I'd make a suggestion about a part of Wikipedia you could work on.

If you look at Category:Aviation articles needing infoboxes, you'll see that there are 2,284 articles in that category. Some are airports, some are aircraft, some are aircraft weapons or engines, and so on. At the top of the page, there's also a list of infoboxes that can be used for each type of article. (Usually they only need one each, so choose carefully as to which one to use!)

So, the challenge is to reduce the 2,284 articles in that category, by adding infoboxes; and, where possible, to make extra improvements on the articles at the same time.

Articles that already have an infobox

The way an article gets in that category, is it has "needs-infobox=y" or similar, on its talk page. Sometimes, someone will already have added an infobox, but forgotten to change the needs-infobox=y to needs-infobox=n. In that case, all you need do is change it for them, and that's the job done for that article!

But do check the talk page to make sure that the change hasn't messed anything up.

Articles with referenced info

In many cases, the article won't have an infobox, but will already have the information (properly referenced) that you need to create one. Remember that you don't have to fill in every field in the infobox template - or even most of them. But do check that the information is going in the right fields, and that the infobox looks sensible once it's created. Remember you can compare it with other aviation articles about similar things, to see what goes where.

Once the infobox is done and looks correct, also change the talk page, so that the article gets removed from the category of needing an infobox.

Articles with unreferenced info

Where the article has the information needed for an infobox, but doesn't have reliable references for it, then it's still OK to create an infobox and put the information into it. However, what you could also do (at the same time or later) is to add a verifiable source for the information. We can look at that in a bit more detail as you go through.

Again, change the talk page once the infobox looks right.

Anyway, when you have some time, give this a try and see how you get on. Do ask if you need help or if you're unsure about anything. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow thanks, I will get to it tomorrow morning. User:Aviation.expert 22:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I see you've started work on this - that's great!

I've created a userpage User:Demiurge1000/aviation infobox improvements to keep track of extra improvements and things to check. Please watchlist that page, and also, have a look through the checks and improvements that I've suggested for each of the articles. You can edit the "aviation infobox improvements" page to note when each item been fixed (or comment on it); it's probably a good idea to sign comments (in the usual way) so that it's clearer.

We can also discuss there, how to add extra information that's needed in any of the articles. Of course, these additions will need to be referenced to reliable independent sources, so it will be a useful way of practicing that as well. But, one thing at a time :-)

Finally, I will also ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation for any of its members that may want to watchlist the page and make suggestions about how we should do things. They will probably know more than either of us about the best information to put in infoboxes, and in some cases they will also have reference books (ideal for adding referenced information!) that neither you nor me have. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Good job on fixing these, I see the category is down to 2,269 aviation articles (instead of 2,284) that still need infoboxes. I see you're taking a bit of a break from Wikipedia right now, but whenever you feel like doing some more, give it a try and see how much more you can reduce the backlog! If you need any help or advice with it, just let me know. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Afd for Tanklet

I was just wondering if you wanted to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanklet again and see what you think from the discussion so far. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)