User talk:Charlotte1103

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Charlotte1103, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Risen (airplane). I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of SWISS EXCELLENCE AIRPLANES (SEA) S.A.[edit]

Hello Charlotte1103,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged SWISS EXCELLENCE AIRPLANES (SEA) S.A. for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation articles[edit]

Please feel free to use Template:WPAVIATION creator for any aviation articles. The templates give a standardised layout and take all the hard work out of writing articles on aviation subjects.--Petebutt (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Swiss Excellence Airplanes[edit]

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.

A tag has been placed on Swiss Excellence Airplanes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 09:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Potential conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Charlotte1103. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Swiss Excellence Risen, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More potential conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Charlotte1103. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Swiss Excellence Siren, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Ahunt (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still more potential conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Charlotte1103. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Swiss Excellence Airplanes, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Ahunt (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ahun! I am a pilot and flew with this aircraft. Is that already COI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlotte1103 (talk • contribs)

Just having flown an aircraft is not a conflict of interest, but in looking at your editing history all your edits have been about this company and its aircraft and the tone of what you have written is very promotional in nature. Wikipedia has very strong rules about manufacturers of products using Wikipedia for advertising. If you work for the company or represent them in any way you need to declare that and work with neutral editors to make sure that the articles are not spam. - Ahunt (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a look in the history you will also see there were no articles about it before. So I took the information from my visit, exhibitions, websites, videos and flyers. Please watch all of it and see how neutral magazines report about it. Also other people edited the article and added more details. For pilots Wikipedia is a great source to compare available models. I would like to add more, but not if it is that complicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlotte1103 (talk • contribs)

That is why over at WP:AIR we work on these articles. We also have a fair amount of trouble with manufacturers and their PR people here on Wikipedia trying to use the encyclopedia to sell aircraft, so we are very careful to use neutral language and cited facts, using factory website details as little as possible and instead using third party sources as much as we can, keeping the promotional language out of them. The SEA articles are in much better shape now and as long as they don't get reworded to be promotional again should avoid being deleted this time around. Most factory PR people declare their conflicts of interest and work with neutral editors to make the articles look and read reasonably, including critiques and negative reviews when they are published in reliable sources. Adding information is not complicated, it just has to be using neutral, non-promotional language and cited to reliable sources. - Ahunt (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just sadly again and again it contains mistakes. Comparing different sources is the most important thing, even if there are just a few on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlotte1103 (talk • contribs)

Your changes have been reverted because they contradict the cited sources. For instance the World Directory of Light Aviation says Porto designed the Risen. Also https://www.aerovfr.com/2016/04/du-risen-au-siren/ says that the Siren is a varient of teh Siren. You need more than inside information you need proper refs. You probably also need to read WP:OWN. Once you start an article anyone can edit it and the company loses control over what is written here. That is why all your promotional language has been removed. - Ahunt (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Ahunt (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the French page did a mistake. Please read http://www.aerokurier.de/luftsport/ultraleicht-lsa/swiss-excellence-airplanes-auf-risen-folgt-siren/677184. It shows without any doubt that there are two different models produced by SEA. If you still do not believe I am sure you can call the company and ask them to send you information material. {— Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlotte1103 (talk • contribs)

Seriously you need to stop Edit warring before you get blocked and discuss on Talk:Swiss Excellence Risen. - Ahunt (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The AeroKurier article says : "After presenting its new high-performance UL Risen at the AERO last year, Swiss Excellence Airplanes (SEA) has now presented its plans for the Siren in Friedrichshafen. However, the new aircraft is equipped with a fixed landing gear and slit doors. Apart from that, the two machines designed according to JAR-VLA differ only in the offered cockpit equipment as well as the engine range." - Ahunt (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NEW. Says all. It is a new model. There are several differences in the configuration, which was presented at the AERO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlotte1103 (talk • contribs)

So far we have two refs that says it is a variant. If you are so sure then you must have a ref that says that. I read the company website and it doesn't even mention the Siren, so no help there. We need refs. - Ahunt (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahunt is right. Two sources describe it as a new variant. Wikipedia goes by what sources say, not what we editors claim. The burden is on you to produce sources which explain the claimed relationship between the two craft, in sufficient strength to overturn the existing sources which state the opposite. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, even if you were right, your warring behaviour could get your account blocked. Take it easy, Wikipedia will still be here in five minutes' time, probably even tomorrow and next month. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you. So it is confirmed now that this is not the same model? If you understand German you know that "neues Flugzeug" mean "new airplane", not variant. Sadly the article for the Siren is gone now. It is just very disappointing to spent a lot of time with researching and then having people not believing it. I am willing to add more airplanes, but not if it goes like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlotte1103 (talk • contribs)

"Model" is just a marketing term and is often used to describe a new variant of an existing type. This "neues Flugzeug" is a new model based on an existing type. Yes, it can be disappointing, you have my sympathy. Most of us editors have had to learn such lessons the hard way. But like I say, take it easy, be prepared to talk the issues through and not revert madly and you will find it a lot more pleasant. I hope to see your new additions soon, with reliable citations to support them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the whole quote above? It says that they are same except the landing gear and cockpit arrangement. I am still looking for a ref that says it is a whole new design, not finding one. Where do you get your information that it is a new design? - Ahunt (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the phrase "new aeroplane" has enough ambiguity to be misinterpreted. Like the phrase "new model" it could mean a whole new type or just a new variant. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Apart from that, the two machines designed according to JAR-VLA differ only in the offered cockpit equipment as well as the engine range." - that part seems very unambiguous. - Ahunt (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We native English-speakers sometimes forget how hard it is for others to translate their languages into ours. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'm also German native speaker. "Neues Flugzeug" means another airplane. Also there is a "slight" price difference of 100.000€ (half the price) and the configuration varies in many parts. Are you sure it is the same? Just a variation? Or do you maybe trust a bit in people, who are experienced in the European light aircraft market? You cannot say it is the same. A variation is - for example for the Risen - the different engines and maybe the different finishings Race, Sport and Executive. What about a Tecnam P2002 developed out of a P96? Same case. There it is also seen as a new, other airplane, even if they are very similar (I saw and tested both). Also Blackshape will soon present a new airplane, which is developed out of the Prime and at the first glance looks quite similar. How should the producers call it so that also people, who are native English speakers with obviously no knowledge of German or Italian, understand this? They cannot say more than "new airplane" or "new model". I am sure none of them will appreciate to see you calling the airplanes "the same". Tell me and I will forward it when I meet the producers next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlotte1103 (talk • contribs)

Where is your reference? Even the company website doesn't mention the aircraft. We have to work from sources here on Wikipedia, not opinions and the two sources we do have say this is a variant. To change this we need a source that says otherwise. Where is it? - Ahunt (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree it cannot be just a "version" with a 100.000€ price difference? One source says new aircraft. I hope soon there will be new information since the AERO is coming closer and two of these companies will be present. But since "new aicraft" does not convince you, how would you call it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlotte1103 (talk • contribs)

Price has little to do with it and doesn't prove or disprove design relationship. Companies can price products anyway they like. It isn't about what is "new" or "neu" either. The AeroKurier article says : "...the two machines designed according to JAR-VLA differ only in the offered cockpit equipment as well as the engine range." We have two refs that call it a variant of the existing aircraft. We need a new ref that says it isn't, or is a different design, or is a clean sheet design, anything will help. Perhaps the company webmaster would like to post something about the aircraft, since it isn't currently mentioned there at all. - Ahunt (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahunt is right. No source, no deal. End of. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]