User talk:Aurovrata

Welcome


Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Raj Hamsa X-Air
I had to remove the text you added to this article. To add substantive text like this that contradicts the cited refs you must cite a new ref. Personal experience is original research and cannot be used because it is not verifiable. This can be added back in with a proper ref cited. - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For myself I would have preferred a less harsh style of correction though I can't say it was wrong. I am especially fascinated by the mention of production in Belgium. I would like to research in depth, any pointers where to begin? Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Jan, I'd be happy to give you some leads. I will try to post some clues on the subject on this page, I need to check with the founder/designer of the X-Air.--User:Aurovrata


 * Ahunt, I appreciate your comment, and seeing that you started the artcile it begs to ask the following question: Where is the reference for your original claim on the manufacturing location ? Surely, you should then remove the original claim too in order to maintain your own standards.  Anyhow, please explain how do you incorporate personal experience?  I grew up as the step-son of the founder of the subject of the article, later on working for 5 years in the same company, well aware of its history.  How do you propose to get a reference?  Do I write a piece on my blog about it and then link it here?  Does that make it verifiable ?   --User:Aurovrata


 * The original refs are cited on the page. I have gone over them and corrected the text to reflect precisely what they say. I am not sure where the France claim came from.


 * Basically you can't incorporate personal experience into Wikipedia, as that is forbidden under WP:OR, mostly because it is not verifiable. For the same reason just putting personal experience into a blog and then citing it runs afoul of WP:SPS, again for the same reason. - Ahunt (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Ahunt, thanks for the update, I think that reads better. Although there are still 2 small corrections: 1 the Weedhopper was initially manufactured in Europe, and then shifted to Raj Hamsa in India.  During the initial years, a cabin was integrated to close the open-air cockpit of the Wheedhoper.  Joel Koechlin (Founder and chief engineer at Raj Hamsa) then redesigned the entire wing and introduced ailerons as the landing speed would have otherwise exceeded the UL category in most EU countries.  Thus was born the X-Air F (Falcon in some countries like the UK), but the F simply stands for Flaps.  The X-Air H (Hanuman in India and original name, Hawk in the UK) is totally new aircraft designed from the ground-up shares nothing with the original X-Air series. -- Aurovrata 14:26, 25 November 2014 (IST)


 * As for the French claim, it comes from Randkar, Eric Laskar (one of the founders and directors of Randkar), initially insisted on marketing the UL aircraft as manufactured in France because he feared that people would have a negative perception of India. This is back in early 1990s when outsourcing wasn't common.  However, today this is not a concern and hence the truth can and should be told. -- Aurovrata 14:26, 25 November 2014 (IST)


 * Wrt personal citation, I wish to say that I somewhat disagree with the strong position of Wikipedia on this. I am myself an Astrophysicist by profession and in academia we are allowed private communication references as citation, basically when one scientist speaks to another about some work which is not published.  Life is made up of experiences, and therefore all official references are simply communications from person's experience shared with another who publishes that information and makes it public.  -- Aurovrata 14:26, 25 November 2014 (IST)


 * Thanks for the history, it sounds like a good story there. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore a tertiary reference, we actually are held to higher standards than academic papers. This means that we can only cite reliable and verifiable sources, so that other editors can check what has been entered. Without this Wikipedia would degenerate into a blog full of uncited opinion. WP:OR, WP:V and in particular the section at WP:SPS pretty much sum up the policies we live with. - Ahunt (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I could imagine a protocol where unreferenced information is posted in a Sandbox and remains there for a period of several years, allowing the information to be contested before eventually becoming part of the general body of articles.... -- Aurovrata 12:15, 26 November 2014 (IST)


 * That is an interesting idea, but it still wouldn't meet the requirements of being verifiable by anyone. The main problem we ran into early in Wikipedia was that experts would write what they knew and then other experts would tell them that they were wrong, of course. That quickly lead to a hard policy requirement for verifiability, so that anyone could check the information. We still accept opinions, provided they are published in third party publications, but they get identified in the articles as opinions and we try to provide a balance of opinions as well, if there is controversy involved. It all makes for a pretty high bar, but does mean that overall Wikipedia is fairly reliable. - Ahunt (talk) 13:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joel Koechlin (January 4)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Joel Koechlin and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Aurovrata Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onel5969&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Aurovrata reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Joel Koechlin concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Joel Koechlin, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Joel Koechlin


Hello, Aurovrata. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Joel Koechlin".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13. An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)