User talk:Red Sky Ventures

Welcome!

Hello Red Sky Ventures, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

In Wikipedia, new Users do not automatically receive a welcome; not even a machine-generated welcome. Welcome messages come from other Users. They are personal and genuine. They contain an offer of assistance if such assistance is ever desired.

I suggest to everyone I welcome that they may find some of the following helpful — there’s nothing personal in my suggestion and you may not need any of them:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Dolphin51 (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize from reading your user page that you represent a publisher of aviation books, but I just wanted to warn you not to try to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote your products. Please have a read through WP:EL and WP:SPAM. - Ahunt (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} Dolphin51, Thanks so much for your welcome. I'm lost here, guess I need to learn another language....

Sorry needed the helpme - could not yet work out how to use the talk pages. And did not want to seem like an idiot - except perhaps here on my own page. Love the comment about Bernoulli - perhaps it's misunderstood by some professors (glad to hear) - just like the centrifugal force, but for me (just a pilot and certificate level engineer)it's very real. Makes me wish I could go back to engineering school. Please can you check the lift drag ratio - it looks very wrong, I tried to change it, would like to put the formulas in but not sure how to do the symbol for density - should I create somewhere else and use a picture? And a graph might be helful, I was searching for one for one of my teaching aids when I found the article. Perhaps we learn/teach over simplified aerodynamics in pilot school, but we feel it means the general population do not struggle to understand?

Ahunt - Regarding the Cessna 210 page, sorry for the accident bit - it was not mine a rushed cut and paste, but to only have one accident, and a "tabloid" style accident is also to me very "un-wiki" like. C210s have a dangerous history relative to numbers and other Cessnas - I will take some time to go through NTSB myself and post STATs shortly.

As for publicising - yes sure, as a publisher everything you do is aimed at publicity, but as for using wiki just as a vehicle for publicity, this is definitely not the case. To cite a book in bibliography that has a small section on the C210, interesting, but surely it would pay to mention the two books (only two) that have been written specifically about the Cessna 210? Ours being one and the other is the CPA Cessna 210 Buyers Guide. As it is a page about the C210, I would have thought this is a wiki-type fact? The bibliography (now removed) was the only reference I placed to the book, and can you help me out a little here, what defines bibliography versus reference citation? I felt the model history was lacking a little - still is, and most of the info is in my book - so the article is intended to improve the quality of information provided. It is a shame the operator info from some time back was taken out, it's intersting to me to know who operates. All the other references included in the model history from the Airlife's book are also found in our book - I would be happy to send a copy - for verification purposes, if you wish.

Anyway - really great work you've all done. Wiki is a really amazing place, which I could commit more time to contributions.

Better get on to accident stats - good for a much needed blog anyway, important topic and not enough found on the searches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Sky Ventures (talk • contribs) 05:52, 1 February 2010

Hi Red Sky ventures, and welcome again. Unfortunately, I couldn't realize a question from your above statements. Did you have a question, or were you trying to contact Dolphin51 directly? If it's the latter, be aware that {{helpme}} will attract attention from many different users, so you should try to contact him on his talk page directly. You can get there by going to the page User talk:Dolphin51. The page there acts just like another Wikipedia page. You can edit it in any way, but the preferred manner is to open a new discussion by going to the bottom of the page and using ==A heading like this== followed by your comments on a new line. Additionally, "sign" your posts on a talk page by using the code ~~~~. This adds your username and a timestamp so users know who said the statement and when it was said. I'm going to close off the {{helpme}} request for now under the assumption you were trying to contact Dolphin51. If you need any more assistance feel free to contact me directly or to use {{helpme}} again and someone will be glad to assist. Happy editing! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much - not sure about the ettiquitte of these pages, but that did really help! I have now worked out the talk (duh) and so posted these above comments on the respective talk pages, love it.

Cessna 210

Thanks for your note on Cessna 210. Your book is still on the ref list as a ref for the article and that is fine - adding it to the biblio list is redundant and makes it look like an attempt to WP:SPAM the article, especially considering that it is your own book. As far as removing the accident summary goes, I agree that more on the 210 safety record is needed, but as per WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR you can't read a bunch of accident reports and then draw your own conclusions about what that all adds up to. If you want to do a summary of the 210's accident record then you need a ref that analyses it and then either quote or paraphrase from that. As far as being zealous about removing commercial attempts to promote books and other products from Wikipedia, you need to be aware that since the recession started thousands of commercial enterprises, especially in aviation, who had their advertising budgets cut seem to now view Wikipedia as an opportunity to get free advertising for their products. It is a matter of policy that this is not permitted to maintain Wikipedia as a neutral encyclopedia and not a free-advertising marketing website. If you want to work together to improve the 210 article that would be great, let's work out what can be done on the Talk:Cessna 210 page. You can propose ideas there there and I will help you format and reference it to put into the article. Collaboration is how Wikipedia works! - Ahunt (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]