I have restored the referenced content about the purchase price of True Flight that you deleted twice. Please don't delete relevant text that is properly referenced. Deleting content like this can be mistaken for vandalism and result in a ban. Some editors will also assume that you are working for the company in question and thus in an editing conflict of interest. If you do work for True Flight or are otherwise in a conflict of interest then please make that known on the article talk page and post any changes you would like to see on the talk page so that editors who are not in a COI can judge whether to make the changes or not. That procedure is all explained in WP:COI
I have also tagged your new paragraph on the display at Sun 'n Fun. Under Wikipedia policy you must have a reference cited to verify these statements, otherwise they constitute original research which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Essentially everything stated of a factual or opinion nature (in other words not just copyediting) needs to be supported by references. If you want to see why this is important have a look at this CBC article. - Ahunt ( talk) 11:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Please stop removing information that has a citation without discussion as this could be considered vandalism. If you have a reason to believe that the information is wrong or misleading then please discuss it on the articles talk page. Please note also the contents of conflict of interest guideline and note that accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest may be blocked. MilborneOne ( talk)
Please excuse my ignorance here - I am fumbling my way through this wiki stuff. I is not my desire to remove factually accurate information. I am attempting to remove factually inaccurate information. Being sourced does not make it true. I may indeed have a conflict of interest here (because I am affiliated with the company and know the whole story) but the posted information is incorrect, harmful and from my point of view malicious. It appears that Russ Niles, whose article is quoted, took his information from an article in the Martinsburg Journal that only covered part of the deal and was misleading. As to the Sun n Fun comments I added, I have not figured out how to add a reference but You can find all of that information on the AYA.org web site. I am not trying to spin anything - I just want to avoid half truths masquerading as the whole story. I really don't understand how or why the comments of someone writing who is not privy to the whole story can have precidence over the information provided by those who actually know. It is very frustrating! Thanks and again, please excuse my fumbling around. I'm learning though, I hope! Tigerflier ( talk) 03:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
"An editor with a conflict of interest who wishes to suggest substantive changes to an article should use that article's talk page. When making a request please consider disclosing your conflict of interest to avoid misunderstanding."
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."
Sorry I forgot to answer your other question. In cases where company staff edit an article on the company to control content there, they often find themselves blocked by Administrators as a result. The common next step is to create a new account or multiple new accounts to continue editing the article. These new accounts are called sockpuppets. As that article outlines, sockpuppets have been a problem on Wikipedia, but most of the tactics are well-documented. With few exceptions, sockpuppeting is not allowed in Wikipedia. It is really better to put all the cards on the table and edit in a straightforward manner.
In the interests of disclosure, I am an aviation writer and am actually a fan of the AA-1 and AA-5. I owned an AA-1 Yankee from 2004-07 and was a member of AYA during that period as well and wrote articles for The Star. I have worked on this and other articles on the Grummans and the companies that have built them because I like the aircraft a lot. Despite the challenging economic circumstances to start up an aircraft manufacturing operation in 2008, I hope TF succeeds. - Ahunt ( talk) 11:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I understand but the price mentioned is not accurate or pertinent to the article about Tiger Aircraft. It is harmful to TF. Picture this. Let's say you made a deal to buy land to develop - for $30,000 cash plus a commitment to spend $300,000 to remove the leaking fuel tanks buried there and $100,000 to clean up the site. The public record only picks up the $30,000. Our local friendly reporter goes to the court house and sees that you paid $30,000 for the land and prints it. Knowing you actually spent $430,000 to purchase the land, do you respond? Would you take out an ad to try to correct the situation or just laugh it off and hope it is not repeated? Then, unfortunately, someone reads that and posts it on the web. How would that affect you ability to develop the land. Anyone you approach to buy into your projcet says but it's only worth $30,000 - I saw it on Wiki. Not good. Russ is a good guy and I'm sure he means no harm but it is harmful nonetheless and is not pertinent to understanding the fate of Tiger Aircraft. It may look sensational but it is not pertinent. I would suggest that the Sun n fun reference is pertinent because the wiki page stated that there had been no furhter information from TF since 11-07 when TF had, in fact, participated in SNF and given a briefing to the AYA and has been published in their magazine The STAR and on their web site. Actually, I'm not sure that either is appropriate for an article about Tiger Aircraft. Sorry I took so long to communicate - what seems simple to you has taken me hours to figure out and I'm still pretty unsure where we are actually talking and if it is open to the world. This is a dangerous place. Scary. Tigerflier ( talk) 13:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
How funny - you just made my point about why the price is irrelevent. The price shows nothing about how the company was run or what was left. There was nearly $3mm in new aircraft parts alone and $367,163.66 cash in the bank not to mention $30mm+ in aircraft manufacturing equipment. They had deposits for new aircraft and the people to build them. There is far more to this than I could begin to explain here. The price more closely speaks to how poorly the sale of the company was handled - the article leads the reader to the conclusion you reached - thus my frustration.
One other point. The President of Tiger did not try to sell the company out from under the board. He acted in what he thought was in the best interest of all involved. I have seen the internal docs. He was in fact trying to preserve the jobs of his employees, many family bread winners, and prevent the intentional bankruptcy of a solvent company resulting in losses to creditors and vendors. He gained nothin in the deal. The board would have been properly compensated - instead they got nothing. Doesn't make any sense unless you know Taiwanese politics. Be careful - you just don't know enough to be posting assumptions. say. When I asked Mr. Criss why he allowed the false stories to go unchecked he said "What am I going to do? Fight them in the media?" I'm starting to see his point.
Total transparancy would include editors revealing themselves and being accountable for perpetuation misimformation. Nothing personal but it is amazing how wrong the entire article is and how wrong the media is about what actually transpired at Tiger Aircraft. For example, Tiger Aircraft never owned the type certificate to the GA-7 Cougar. Socata bought it in 1995 and shipped everything to France before Tiger existed. Innocent enough but it is bad that the misimformation is being propagated. Surely you are savvy enough to realize that all those sources who ran the wrong information likely got it from the same inaccurate source and the further down the line it goes, the less accurate it becomes. I do not see them documenting where they got the information. The fact that something wrong is repeated 100 times doesn't make it right - it just causes uninformed people to believe it. That leads to good people being hurt. I am shocked that wiki doesn't care if it is true - only that it is documented. There should be a disclaimer at the top of every article stating that. Maybe there is. I wish we could have a real conversation - I type way too slow to ever get anywhere with a keyboard :-) Tigerflier ( talk) 17:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I mean no disrespect - I am trying to learn my way through a new world here. Thank you for your insights. Tigerflier ( talk) 20:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It looks very good. Thank you for your direction and help. Maybe I'll eventually get the hang of this. Tigerflier ( talk) 00:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I have restored the referenced content about the purchase price of True Flight that you deleted twice. Please don't delete relevant text that is properly referenced. Deleting content like this can be mistaken for vandalism and result in a ban. Some editors will also assume that you are working for the company in question and thus in an editing conflict of interest. If you do work for True Flight or are otherwise in a conflict of interest then please make that known on the article talk page and post any changes you would like to see on the talk page so that editors who are not in a COI can judge whether to make the changes or not. That procedure is all explained in WP:COI
I have also tagged your new paragraph on the display at Sun 'n Fun. Under Wikipedia policy you must have a reference cited to verify these statements, otherwise they constitute original research which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Essentially everything stated of a factual or opinion nature (in other words not just copyediting) needs to be supported by references. If you want to see why this is important have a look at this CBC article. - Ahunt ( talk) 11:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Please stop removing information that has a citation without discussion as this could be considered vandalism. If you have a reason to believe that the information is wrong or misleading then please discuss it on the articles talk page. Please note also the contents of conflict of interest guideline and note that accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest may be blocked. MilborneOne ( talk)
Please excuse my ignorance here - I am fumbling my way through this wiki stuff. I is not my desire to remove factually accurate information. I am attempting to remove factually inaccurate information. Being sourced does not make it true. I may indeed have a conflict of interest here (because I am affiliated with the company and know the whole story) but the posted information is incorrect, harmful and from my point of view malicious. It appears that Russ Niles, whose article is quoted, took his information from an article in the Martinsburg Journal that only covered part of the deal and was misleading. As to the Sun n Fun comments I added, I have not figured out how to add a reference but You can find all of that information on the AYA.org web site. I am not trying to spin anything - I just want to avoid half truths masquerading as the whole story. I really don't understand how or why the comments of someone writing who is not privy to the whole story can have precidence over the information provided by those who actually know. It is very frustrating! Thanks and again, please excuse my fumbling around. I'm learning though, I hope! Tigerflier ( talk) 03:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
"An editor with a conflict of interest who wishes to suggest substantive changes to an article should use that article's talk page. When making a request please consider disclosing your conflict of interest to avoid misunderstanding."
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."
Sorry I forgot to answer your other question. In cases where company staff edit an article on the company to control content there, they often find themselves blocked by Administrators as a result. The common next step is to create a new account or multiple new accounts to continue editing the article. These new accounts are called sockpuppets. As that article outlines, sockpuppets have been a problem on Wikipedia, but most of the tactics are well-documented. With few exceptions, sockpuppeting is not allowed in Wikipedia. It is really better to put all the cards on the table and edit in a straightforward manner.
In the interests of disclosure, I am an aviation writer and am actually a fan of the AA-1 and AA-5. I owned an AA-1 Yankee from 2004-07 and was a member of AYA during that period as well and wrote articles for The Star. I have worked on this and other articles on the Grummans and the companies that have built them because I like the aircraft a lot. Despite the challenging economic circumstances to start up an aircraft manufacturing operation in 2008, I hope TF succeeds. - Ahunt ( talk) 11:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I understand but the price mentioned is not accurate or pertinent to the article about Tiger Aircraft. It is harmful to TF. Picture this. Let's say you made a deal to buy land to develop - for $30,000 cash plus a commitment to spend $300,000 to remove the leaking fuel tanks buried there and $100,000 to clean up the site. The public record only picks up the $30,000. Our local friendly reporter goes to the court house and sees that you paid $30,000 for the land and prints it. Knowing you actually spent $430,000 to purchase the land, do you respond? Would you take out an ad to try to correct the situation or just laugh it off and hope it is not repeated? Then, unfortunately, someone reads that and posts it on the web. How would that affect you ability to develop the land. Anyone you approach to buy into your projcet says but it's only worth $30,000 - I saw it on Wiki. Not good. Russ is a good guy and I'm sure he means no harm but it is harmful nonetheless and is not pertinent to understanding the fate of Tiger Aircraft. It may look sensational but it is not pertinent. I would suggest that the Sun n fun reference is pertinent because the wiki page stated that there had been no furhter information from TF since 11-07 when TF had, in fact, participated in SNF and given a briefing to the AYA and has been published in their magazine The STAR and on their web site. Actually, I'm not sure that either is appropriate for an article about Tiger Aircraft. Sorry I took so long to communicate - what seems simple to you has taken me hours to figure out and I'm still pretty unsure where we are actually talking and if it is open to the world. This is a dangerous place. Scary. Tigerflier ( talk) 13:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
How funny - you just made my point about why the price is irrelevent. The price shows nothing about how the company was run or what was left. There was nearly $3mm in new aircraft parts alone and $367,163.66 cash in the bank not to mention $30mm+ in aircraft manufacturing equipment. They had deposits for new aircraft and the people to build them. There is far more to this than I could begin to explain here. The price more closely speaks to how poorly the sale of the company was handled - the article leads the reader to the conclusion you reached - thus my frustration.
One other point. The President of Tiger did not try to sell the company out from under the board. He acted in what he thought was in the best interest of all involved. I have seen the internal docs. He was in fact trying to preserve the jobs of his employees, many family bread winners, and prevent the intentional bankruptcy of a solvent company resulting in losses to creditors and vendors. He gained nothin in the deal. The board would have been properly compensated - instead they got nothing. Doesn't make any sense unless you know Taiwanese politics. Be careful - you just don't know enough to be posting assumptions. say. When I asked Mr. Criss why he allowed the false stories to go unchecked he said "What am I going to do? Fight them in the media?" I'm starting to see his point.
Total transparancy would include editors revealing themselves and being accountable for perpetuation misimformation. Nothing personal but it is amazing how wrong the entire article is and how wrong the media is about what actually transpired at Tiger Aircraft. For example, Tiger Aircraft never owned the type certificate to the GA-7 Cougar. Socata bought it in 1995 and shipped everything to France before Tiger existed. Innocent enough but it is bad that the misimformation is being propagated. Surely you are savvy enough to realize that all those sources who ran the wrong information likely got it from the same inaccurate source and the further down the line it goes, the less accurate it becomes. I do not see them documenting where they got the information. The fact that something wrong is repeated 100 times doesn't make it right - it just causes uninformed people to believe it. That leads to good people being hurt. I am shocked that wiki doesn't care if it is true - only that it is documented. There should be a disclaimer at the top of every article stating that. Maybe there is. I wish we could have a real conversation - I type way too slow to ever get anywhere with a keyboard :-) Tigerflier ( talk) 17:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I mean no disrespect - I am trying to learn my way through a new world here. Thank you for your insights. Tigerflier ( talk) 20:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It looks very good. Thank you for your direction and help. Maybe I'll eventually get the hang of this. Tigerflier ( talk) 00:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)