User talk:GravityChanges

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Your edits
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

See also and  - DVdm (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. - DVdm (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How in the world can a link to a news article from the number one industry leading magazine be considered advertisement or an affiliated link. I have nothing to do with them. That is their news article. This is much less affiliated or advertisment then the paragraph below where mine was, for Horizon Air their link is their OWN website: Alaska Airlines/Horizon Air.. ONLY THEIR OPINION.. The link I just posted (as well as the Rotor and Wing article previously posted) are unaffiliated and the industries leading news magazines. Please explain to me how a link to an unaffiliated news source reporting on fact is a breach while the paragraph below cites their own webpage as a source? Everything in my last edit is verifiable, proven fact with an unaffiliated and reputable source, please explain my infraction and violation and reconsider my last edit. Thanks, sorry for the trouble.


 * The link is to the web page of a commercial company. The article in question behaves like a blog. Please check wp:source and wp:spam. DVdm (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You were right, I didn't realize that article ran in their magazine was submitted by my boss. So if I source one of the industry news magazines' articles will that be okay? This one I sourced before: is a pdf of an interviewed magazine article. There are also numerous other magazine articles on this, if I link one of them will that be okay. (let me know if the pdf mag article is okay by itself, it is easiest to locate at the moment. If you don't accept the PDF mag article I can locate another outside source, there were articles in all of the news mags that follow helicopter aviation.  If I re-post it with the PDF or another outside news column post are you going to continue to say that it is a breech because it isn't verifiable or true.. How is this not leaps and bounds above the paragraph below where I have been amending the history section (In its rightful place on the timeline) where Horizon Air quotes THEIR OWN WEBSITE as THEIR ONLY SOURCE? GravityChanges (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I do not see how a factual achievement and large step forward in the application of WAAS is considered SPAMMING and/or not valid by you. My edit with just the PDF source previously listed was more verified than much of the WAAS wiki-page (like the paragraph below it). So please tell me what you want, I will gladly provide it. You just kept deleting it and saying it was the links, but I would and will gladly find something you find suitable if you work with me rather than just preparing to ban me. I thought that news page or pdf would be fine after looking at the following paragraph's source, but this is the helicopter industry so all I can give you is helicopter industry news reports, (unfortunately not all those news magazines post all their info online [since they charge for subscription] hence the PDF of one such article) Let me know what you want, you'll get it. Thanks GravityChanges (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You "didn't realize that article ran in their magazine was submitted by your boss"? Come on, even I realised it and I'm sitting in my chair on the other side of the world, so to speak. Clearly there's a conflict of interest here. The pdf you had provided just looks like a privately scanned paper version of an advertisement in disguise. It is commercial and I don't think there's a place for it in Wikipedia. Perhaps a mention by an outside technical (non-commercial) source might help, provided of course it is put forward by an editor who has been around for a while, as opposed to what clearly looks like a specially created single purpose account like you. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So how is a scanned news article pdf (which is NOT any form of advertisement, but news about the FIRST and ONLY WAAS helicopter approaches not belong on the WAAS wiki.. and how is that not a better source than the Horizon Air source of their own website with no author? I will send some other sources, but I fear you may not fully understand the context in content of which I submitted.  I don't understand your negativity towards me, this was my first wiki and I never saw your reasoning until the second to last one, I just saw it was deleted, but I didn't know why when my outside sources where clearly better than the paragraph below when you let a company quote only its own website.  So I truly apologize, now I would like to clear this up in a civil manner.  So you want me to post a link asking you about a source before I post the edit with the source?  GravityChanges (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I mean the top of the page is "industry news" in that pdf.. The article on this is halfway down the page, did you even read it? It isn't an advertisement it was an interviewed news article on the first WAAS helicopter application. So what exactly is "commercial" about it? You don't accept the top industry news sources for helicopter aviation? If I link it not in the form of a PDF you would accept it, or you wouldn't because it is owned by a company, hence commercially owned... Other than industry sources, nothing outside the industry will have any data on the industries news (ie what would an outside technical source be aside from such an outside reputable industry news source) GravityChanges (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See WP:EL:
 * "But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide."
 * and Conflict of interest, all over the place. DVdm (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Rotor and Wings was a larg aviation news source.. Here are links to other main aviation sources (not in pdf form), like that one it WAS NOT submitted by my boss that is a technical aviation (science / technical) source. Here is another source non-user submitted. Here is another top industry source, non user submitted. This one too is a major source (but a source quoted before at a different article, AIN), and non user submitted, but it is more enveloping than just WAAS, if you read the article it does provide a source for WAAS info I stated as well though (about halfway in it). So tell me what the problem with these. If there are certain ones you accept and others you for some reason don't. I would like to make this work with you so please guide me through this. They are all technical reputable scientific sources in the industry, not linked to anything to do with Hickok & Associates, and not advertisement or commercial. Thanks. GravityChanges (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems better. I have 'unrevtagged' the refs in your message above, to make them accessible here on this talk page. It looks like the 3rd ref doesn't work for me. So go ahead, feel free to reinsert the text in the article, backed by these refs. DVdm (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks, I truly appreciate your help, and apologize for my ignorance on Wiki- I have only had an account for like 2 days or so. I am impressed with your thoroughness. Sorry for the complication. For my own education, what was it about the helicoptersmagazine page that disqualifies it (that was the only article I found in my cursory search for a source in-construable as self-submitted that reports on the approval of the first approaches / verse the approval of the criteria for them previous to that) Thanks again  GravityChanges (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No Problem - maybe I was a bit harsh. Sorry for that. The problem with the first helicoptersmagazine page was the bottom "Submit Your Comment" part which is sort of bloggy. Try to avoid these, and sites with "We sell..." or "We provide...". Cheers - DVdm (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)