Ghigliottilaw
October 2010
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Bay Area Rapid Transit appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
November 2010
edit Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Douglas C-47 Skytrain. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Bzuk (talk) 05:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. The information you added to the Pershing article, about his grave at Arlington, was interesting. Do you have a citation from a source that will support it? Without such a citation, your information is vulnerable to being deleted by any editor who is uncertain of its factuality.
If you need assistance in adding a reference, please let me know and I'll be glad to help. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ach! I looked back, and someone has indeed deleted it already. Please find a source. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Any published sources? Your personal knowledge really isn't sufficient, since it qualifies as original research. See the verifiability and reliable sources policies. I didn't advocate that the material should come out, but another editor decided to delete it, because it's not supported by a citation. Can you look around and see what you can find? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Re" (copy/edit) from my "talk page":Dear Bzuk, I have never "talked" with a Wikipedia editor. I am a little confused as this is a "talk page", but the warnng is that if I hit "save page" it instantly become visible to everyopne. I assume that you objected to my insertions regarding use of the C-47 for drug smuggling. You are correct. My references cannot be attributed, although several of the "crash histories" attached ot the C-47 site includes specific cityations to its use as a drug smuggling airplane. I practiced aviation law in the 1990s, and heard that information among attorneys discussing the C-47. It was said to be an airplane that was so sturdy that you could crash land it, gas up, and fly away. I hope that you had no objections to the skydiving commentary, because that was first hand. I did skydive from a C-47 at Lodi, California, and it is a sweet airplane.Ghigliottilaw (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Jerome J. Ghigliotti, Jr., Esq. ghigliottilaw@sbcglobal.net 11-12-10, 11:41 pm (PST)"
- Dear Jerome, as all the above concerns from other editors suggests, there are real problems in simply relying on your own recollections or personal information in creating or adding to an encyclopedia article. As you can surmise, the standard is to provide verifiable second or third-person, authoritative sources to "validate" or support your statements. Here was my concern, in brief with your submission on the Douglas C-47: The C-47, and its DC-3 antecedent are often confused and mixed up, so that the assertion that it was a suitable platform for skydiving or even drug smuggling, immediately comes under scrutiny. Was it really a C-47? The military version has some unique characteristics including loading door/ engine and other configuration changes that marks it as the DC-3 variant used for transport, towing and "parachute mission" roles. My former boss owned two C-47s that were most probably best described as hybrids with passenger interiors and when we delved into the past history of one of the aircraft (note: "aircraft', not "airplane", or "plane"), it was clear that it was a DC-3 first, although it had the "look" of a C-47. The fact that the 400+ DC-3/C-47 survivors have undergone modifications and conversions makes the situation extremely confusing. Since you provided no reference sources, and even the anecdotal statements that you have used to explain your understanding of the C-47's capabilities, puts the "I heard it from so-and-so" stamp on the statement, making the submission unlikely to be considered reliable, and would end up being challenged by crusty old aviation historians like myself. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC).