User talk:Peter J Dalton

December 2022
Hello, I'm 3mi1y. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Cessna 182 Skylane have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. &#x2130; mi1y&#x29fc;T&middot;C&#x29fd; 10:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, yes I think you might have made a mistake. I feel that this link provides a valuable resource to information. It provides historical, current data. It highlights the type of aircraft and its specification information and provides further knowledge on the subject. I try to look at this from your point of view and ask how this could be a negatively impacting input? And I cannot see any negative impact on having access to further resource on the subject. I look forward to your reply to help highlight where i maybe wrong? Peter J Dalton (talk) 10:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Business jet. Wikipedia is not a collection of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links may include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated and links that attract visitors to a website 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. Adakiko (talk) 11:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Again i feel that you have made a mistake. This is an article which holds relevant information - https://aeroclassifieds.com/inventory/owning-a-private-jet/ . It supports the context of the page and provides a further resource to the topic about the ownership of such topic.  It is there purely as an extension to the page, providing further resource if the viewer wishes to view it. There is no financial gain from this article. If the viewer chooses to read it in relation to the topic i feel that it adds weight and balance to the chosen information requested by the viewer.  I do not understand the basis of your comment.. if you can highlight the facts that you find inappropriate this could help for further understanding Peter J Dalton (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * 3mi1y and I are two different people. I do not see how a list of classifieds support the article. Such a link is the epitome of spam. Please read the links above regarding editing on Wikipedia. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If the links were unrelated to the topic i would value your point. However the links within the article based on "Private jet" again provide further dialogue and further information on such subject. The article itself is a valued article written by an aviation professional within the aviation field. I assume you are not an aviation professional. You discussion seems to be heavily focused on the "links" within the article. Can you identify which one(s) define as "SPAM" quote "unwanted, unsolicited digital communication that gets sent out in bulk"? The links within the article are not "pop ups" they are not automatically activated, as such again your argument seems to be against the user choosing to click on the link to gain further information or not.  Your comment seems to be more of a "controlling nature" as opposed to specifically the content which Wikipedia is about. The article is a source of information which provides onward options if the reader chooses to continue with there research or journey on such subject. Your comment above broken down into its most basic form is.. You do not like the fact that the reader has additional aviation material to view. ? I will elaborate my points
 * The content is in-keeping with the subject matter.
 * The links are not spam as they are not send in bulk
 * The links are not auto selected or navigated, they are click as such action of a choice by the viewer
 * The content is relevant
 * I think you would agree with me that if you and I were in a court room now discussing this matter your opinions and self opinionated view are falling short, lack evidential fact based on your view of spam, and further more fall short of what a viewer would actually like to be able to access against what you believe they wouldn't through there own decision making. Adakiko... I am yet to hear a valid reason as to why the article cannot stand. you have provided nothing other than your own personal opinion which is WRONG, and this is WRONG in the eyes of what Wikipedia is for.. not your personal opinion to dictate what you deem to be important information. Come back to me with a strong solid counter debate on this, prove your reasoning and your value here please. 2A00:23C7:6880:AC01:E08E:F06A:539F:C07E (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed your additions and agree with the above two editors, they are classified as WP:SPAM. Please stop adding them or you will be blocked. - Ahunt (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If the links were to be removed and the article placed based on its content of topic discussion would this be acceptable. Peter J Dalton (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I do not understand what you mean by that. - Ahunt (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The criticism arose based on the article that I wrote "Owning a business jet". Within the online article there were additional links pointing off in different directions. Some adding further references to other aircraft by type and brand.
 * The highlighted error or dispute was that these links are "spammy" and ad no value ? which I contested. However there was no issue raised on the supporting article that I wrote. As such if I place the article as a supporting link to the page (thus removing the external links) would this suffice? In essence it is a pure content written article in line with the theme of the page providing additional reference and resource. Nothing more or nothing less than what other people have contributed. Peter J Dalton (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you the author of https://aeroclassifieds.com/inventory/owning-a-private-jet ? - Ahunt (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I write many aviation articles and reviews Peter J Dalton (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So is https://aeroclassifieds.com your website then? - Ahunt (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I own AeroClassifieds, I own BoatClassifieds I own another 6 aviation related websites. I provide articles for aviation forums as well as aircraft market reviews. I have been within aviation for almost 20 years. 2A00:23C7:6880:AC01:E08E:F06A:539F:C07E (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume you forgot to sign in there, hence the IP signature. I figured you did own the website, since all your edits have been to add links to it. Posting links to your own website is the exact definition of spamming and we don't permit that here, see WP:SPAM and also WP:PROMOTIONAL. By the way I did read your article at https://aeroclassifieds.com/inventory/owning-a-private-jet and (I don't know how to write this more politely) but while it is comprehensibly written it has no substantive content, no actual information contained in it. I work as a journalist and this is what we classify as "filler" or, at best an advertorial. It is not suitable to be added to the encyclopedia or to be used as a reference. Also since your website does not seem to have independent editorial oversight (ie you write items and then just post them) this is self-published content, the same as a personal blog. You can note we don't use those as references either, for the reasons outlined in that link. - Ahunt (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ahunt. at least this is a more useful explanation highlighting actual fact. We shall change our approach. Thanks. 2A00:23C7:6880:AC01:E08E:F06A:539F:C07E (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am glad that was of some help. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia without posting links to your own website, then great. If you put links to your own website I suspect you will be quickly blocked from editing. - Ahunt (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)