Talk:Bert Hinkler

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 10:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings from the Hinkler Hall of Aviation

hello all,

My name is Monte and I am part of the Hinkler Hall of Aviation in Bundaberg Queensland; a facility dedicated to the life and memory of Australian Lone Eagle and Bundaberg's favorite son Bert Hinkler.

I am a new contributor to Wikipedia and will be endevouring to clean up and expand the Bert Hinkler Wiki page to reflect more accurate detail as I have noticed within the first two or three paragraphs there are a few names and place dates that do need attention.

I would of course appreciate any help or feedback regarding this cleanup, I'm sure there are endless FAQ pages with all the info I need however nothing is better than a bit of live help.

I can be caught on myspace : www.myspace.com/safeandignorant

cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Safez (talk • contribs) 01:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Monte, but your status is irrelevant. Every editor of wikipedia is equal, and if your changes are not properly sourced or change previously sourced info without providing new sources - the mere fact that you're from Hinkler Hall of Aviation doesn't mean a whole lot. The changes you made where to already sited information that was quoted from newspaper articles. You've changed the information was directly quoted. How can you justify changing direct quotations without providing brand new sources and deleting the sources with which the quotes were associated with. The deletion made was due to the fact that instead of deleting entire quotation and providing a different or improved version, which is fine, you've just inserted your own text and used the sources that were already present and which do not contain the information that you claim they do as they were direct sitations. So, yes, they will be repeatedly deleted and the mere fact that you are from the museum is irrelevant. Every editor has equal status and improver conduct is applicable to all.--RossF18 (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, only your changes to the bio were changed. As you can see, your changes to the honors section remain. As a side note, one edit of yours was the change from "he went to England" to "He borded the boat to England" - does the fact that he took to England really relevant? In an encylopedia article, brevity is key. But, that's a minor point.

--RossF18 (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Finally, in your attempts to improve the article, please be careful as to those, as you say, "first two or three paragraphs there are a few names and place dates that do need attention." As far as I can tell, those paragraphs are adequately sourced. So, if you make changes, please be sure to provide valid sources because dates and names can often be mutually exclusive, namely if one date is right, the other is wrong, and if a certain sentence is sited, by changing the date, you're also disputing the validity of the source from which that date came from - and as you're well aware, all sources are not created equal. Most sources in the article are currently newspaper sources from Australia - somethings that is verifiable and trustworthy. If your sources are noted primary or secondary sources from noted scholars, they may well trump certain newspaper publications. That will have to be discussed. But, if your sources are instead websites that are not authored by experts or blogs, well, in those cases, a newspaper article is much more authoratative than those sources, and the information will be changed back. I think that's fairly self-explanatory. Don't mean to be preachy, but you've yourself admitted to being a new editor, who may not be aware of few guidelines of Wikipedia and a proper way to edit.--RossF18 (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ross,

Your input is noted. All of my information is the most credible primary source material regarding the Hinkler story to date and will be directly referenced to the facility itself; I will only dispute sources that include non descript or factually inaccuarate information that can be revised and rewritten to express a more appropriate understanding of the issue (eg: Hinkler's inventions)

In addition, Newspaper editorials or articles regarding historical events should never be used as references in my opinion. They cause animosity for historians trying desparately to correct factual inaccuracy by presenting their own opinions and research which in turn is presented as "fact" within the public record with shaky sources and one source references.

The sources I intend to quote are recognised primary source from a Government operated facility and new home of the Hinkler Trust. These sources include information that is in some parts contradictary to older publications considered to be historical fact including the Australian Dictonary of Biography article on Hinkler compiled by E.P (TED)Wixted, specifically speculations regarding Hinkler's Last Flight in 1933 where wixted offers his own personal conspiracies and does not reflect the lack of inquest and circumstances of the crash making any definative opinion impossible.

I am aware there are a lot of "rules" that govern wikipedia and it's content. I think it is important to have the most up to date and relevant information.

You would make yourself more useful by focusing your energy on helping me out with in line citations and the like when I get to editing this article.

203.39.51.116 (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

203.39.51.116 (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)