User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Wikipedia![change source]

Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! Thank you for your changes. I hope you like changing pages here. Here are some pages that can help you make better changes:

You do not need to log in to read or change articles on the Simple English Wikipedia. However, making an account is quick, easy and free. It also gives you many benefits such as:

  • A username of your choice
  • Your own user page and/or subpage(s)/sandbox(es)
  • Other users can send you e-mails without knowing your address
  • The ability to move (rename) pages
  • The ability to vote in discussions
  • Keep a watchlist to see changes made to pages you are interested in.

You can click here to make an account.

I hope you enjoy your time here. Please sign your comments on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~). This will make your IP address and the date show up on the page. If you decide to log in, your username and the date will show up instead. Again, welcome, and I hope you decide to stay! -Orashmatash (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles about French airports[change source]

Hi, thanks for all the articles about airports in France! I created a new category for them, Category:Airports in France. If you create any more, you can use that category instead of the Category:France and Category:Airports. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks to you for this information. I'll take care about. (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Use English[change source]

I have questions about some of your article titles. Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Simple talk#Use English. In my opinion, we need to review

What do you think? --Horeki (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done. I have given my opinion on the page Wikipedia:Simple talk#Use English. Many thanks for your message, I will know take care of that. Regards. (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Please understand that you have done nothing "wrong". This was never a "right/wrong" issue. This was one of those choices which have to do with good? better? best?

For me, these were not rhetorical questions. Together we can hope to learn from this discussion thread. In the end, I expect to apply what I learn in Japanese contexts, not French ones. --Horeki (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks again for your very nice answer. Of course we will both learn from this discussion and I will take care about in the future. (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Do you understand this short discussion here?

Do you understand the reasons for changes here?

Please feel encouraged to continue adding more articles and information about French aviation. --Horeki (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Yes, I understand and I agree. I will take care of this and try to continue to do my best to provide a good Quality information about aviation and other subject I know. (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The change summary here is not accurate. This is not as simple as possible. For example, each of the ENAC website pages have tried to focus on a chunk of information with a smaller scope. Are there too many chunks of information in this article? Perhaps the paragraphs and sections would seem simpler if each had a smaller scope.

Please continue to try to do your best. As your writing and experience evolve, the meaning of "as much as possible" may change. --Horeki (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The time you invest in this is worthwhile. As context, please consider one sentence from the bottom of one ENAC web page: "Good English is also necessary as air transport is an international field by definition." As you know,
  • Your work helps to improve your English language skills; and
  • Your words are likely to be read by someone who needs to understand what you are writing about.
My guess is that the value of your articles is confirmed by news reports such as thisStudents graduate from Airbus aviation program," China Daily. May 2, 2012; retrieved 2012-5-26? --Horeki (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much. I love English (I have lived in USA), I love Wikipedia and I love aviation. That's three good reasons to continue my work. Have a great evening. (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

French Civil Aviation University[change source]

You may notice that I have changed the format in the "References" section of French Civil Aviation University. The one-column format is not better, but I wonder if this change might help you to simplify this article further.

As an exercise, please estimate the length of these notes. My monitor shows about 30 lines in one screen. Including the "History" section which I have removed, there were 167 notes. we can guess that the length of the notes is a little over 5 screens of text. What if the article about ENAC were simplified to a length of 6 screens of text? Perhaps this suggests a strategy for you to use?

There is no size limit for articles -- but, in other words, the list of notes is not small. Small and simple are not the same thing, of course -- but the number of paragraphs and the degree of detail in this version of the article is not small. My suggestion is to set aside thinking about the meaning of "simple" for now. Instead, try to think about making the article "smaller" -- not "shorter", but smaller. Maybe the differences between these simple English words will help you to take a fresh look at this article? Maybe the changing perspective will help you to see the subject differently?

Please review the ENAC website, especially one sentence at Les Formations Ingénieur ENAC

«Pour découvrir le détail des programmes de chaque filière, cliquez ci dessous:»

The website pages have different levels of detail. You can see this, can't you? The current version of en:École nationale de l'aviation civile is very detailed. It has too much detail. Perhaps it will help you to re-think your understanding of "simple" if you add an imaginary clickable link at the end of each paragraph. For example, see Talk:French Civil Aviation University#Simple. --Horeki (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your answer. There is no problem anymore. As Peterdownunder said, the article is simple, but not enough. I will try to simplify it as much as possible. Do not hesitate to help. And thanks for all these information. (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Précisément -- yes. Your change here is exactly right. I can't speak for others, but my guess is that this is the kind of simplifying that Auntof6 or Peterdownunder would want to encourage.

Please continue to try to do your best. --Horeki (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I will try to simplify it. Please do not hesitate to give me your opinion. My goal is to make it Good article. (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Louis Pailhas[change source]

I do not know what this means. Do you?

How could I have answered this question without asking for your help? --Horeki (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Yes,

Don't hesitate to contact me for further information :-). (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Explain French acronyms[change source]

At Service d'exploitation de la formation aéronautique#1976-1996, the French acronym "EPL" is not explained. Does this mean fr:Élève Pilote de Ligne? Please compare SEFA in the 1st paragraph. --Horeki (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I will correct. (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Bank of Japan as a model for article about an institution?[change source]

Please take a look at en:Bank of Japan#Governors. I wonder if this article might serve as a model for several changes in the history of French Civil Aviation University?

In the bank article, biography is minimal. This allows for a closer focus on the growth of the institution. Individual articles about each of the bank's governors are linked here.

As you know, the current version of the university article is not simple. The bank article may suggests a slightly different strategy or a small change in focus. This may help you to work towards something which is a little bit better. --Horeki (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. I will take care of this :-). (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Please know that there is nothing "wrong", not really. I only wonder if you might want to consider, for example:
This is only a possibly useful opinion. It is only a suggestion about what might be good? better? best? --Horeki (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes it is useful. I try to think "globally" of how to simplify this article. There is still some work to do, but I am confident I can achieve it. It think it is already much better. Thanks again :-), we keep in touch. (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)