User talk:Rpatlovany

Regarding your edit to Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907:
Your recent edit to Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 (diff) was reverted by automated bot. You have been identified as a new user or a logged out editor using a shared IP address to add email addresses, YouTube, Geocities, Myspace, Facebook, blog, or forum links to a page. Please note that such links are generally to be avoided. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II 22:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Explanation for my reversion
Hi Rpatlovany! First, let me welcome you to WP, as I can see you are new here. Let me try to explain why I reverted your edits. What you included in the Gol 1907 article is essentially what we call on Wikipedia (WP) Original Research. It would be very useful if you could follow that OR link and read it carefully. You may also benefit from reading some of the other important WP policies and guidelines, such as source verifiability and reliability. What you included in the article appears to be interesting, but it does not belong in this article. If you follow the WP policies, you'll note that WP is (or at least tries to be) an encyclopedia. As such, it tries to rely on secondary sources, especially in technical issues. IOW, if there is a technical theory X published in publication Y, if the publication is a reliable and verifiable source, like a reputable peer reviewed mainstream Aeronautical Engineering journal, and the subject matter is otherwise notable and relevant, then (and only then) it can be included in WP. If any of these criteria is missing, it cannot be included here. Looking at it another way, if you are aware of some neat new theory, this is not the place to first introduce it. It first has to undergo peer review and be published by a high quality mainstream publication, then it can be referenced here. You may notice that not all of WP meets this standard, but that is why we keep working here to improve WP and make it better. Now let me mention relevancy and juxtaposition. Let's say that your paper about this subject has been published in its complete form, say in 2005. Until it is mentioned by a reliable source in conjunction with this specific accident, it cannot be included here, as the mere juxtaposition of facts constitutes original research. Even if a reliable source did mention the article and Gol 1907 together, it would still, at most, merit a minor mention, unless the actual accident investigators or the press made a big deal out of it, since notability must also be met for inclusion. Hopefully this gives you a brief overview of the issues involved. You can try to read up in general on WP:5P to get a more general view of the policies. If any of this is still unclear (and I would be surprised if it all is, it took me quite a while to get it), feel free to ask. Crum375 00:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Navigation paradox
Please help us to find a neutral expert to find Wikilinks and "dumb-down" the article to a layperson's point of view. Otherwise, I'll tag it again and it will get erased. Bearian 21:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)