Welcome!

Hello, Meatwaggon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  John Vandenberg 08:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meatwaggon, Please can you supply a page number of the Blockquote from Partington. I would like to verify it.Pyrotec

I cannot. I did not insert the Partington passage, nor can I verify its authenticity. I have serious misgivings about this particular quote as it goes against traditionally accepted understanding of a diffusion of gunpowder knowledge out of China, so I edited the quote to reflect that the only author who attributes multiple locations for the invention of gunpowder is Partington. Please see my own brief discussion on the talk page. Meatwaggon 19:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed the paragraph, I cannot find the quotation in his book and the paragraph appears to misrepresent the contents of his book; and he always quotes his sources.Pyrotec 19:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quote in question is from the introduction to the 1999 edition of A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder, page xvii. this link shows it in Google Book Search. I'm not currently participating in editing the Gunpowder article, so no argument from me if you want to leave this passage out. RedSpruce 10:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just created this article on this very topical subject. The subject matter would make for a good featured article, so I am hoping to enlist your help to get it there qualitatively. Ohconfucius 02:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain this deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACAC_ARJ21&diff=219215427&oldid=217379810 Source clearly states: Scheduled to enter its detailed development phase next month, the ARJ21 would use a supercritical wing designed by Ukraine’s Antonov. It do really looks like a vandalism. TestPilot^{talk to me!} 04:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you follow the link and see what it says? Where is the mention of Antonov designing a supercritical wing for the ARJ-21? Meatwaggon (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you think if the Internet server is down or page no longer available - then you can remove valuable information from the article? And why you removing only part that point to non-Chineese participation in the project? Why don't you remove whole sentence? I see you member wiki project China - and in this context such editing stinks. TestPilot^{talk to me!} 04:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because that was the only part potentially contentious in the paragraph. I see you have a new link. That's what was necessary to keep that sentence in. Meatwaggon (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]