User talk:Marc Lacoste/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Marc Lacoste. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
2005 |
|---|
|
Welcome! Hello, Marc Lacoste/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
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 place Proper NounsProper nouns like September, Euros, Danish, and Italian, MUST always be capitalized.
GrammarIt is: "has acquired," NOT: "as acquired." & It is: "The agrement has to be validated," NOT: "The agrement have to be validated." WikiDon 04:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
|
2006 |
|---|
|
Hi, please turn this gallery (or at least all the fair use images on it) into a list of links instead, or something like that, as soon as possible. Wikipedia policy doesn't allow fair use images to be displayed in userspace (see Wikipedia:Fair use#Fair use policy), and acording to this report you have 43 of them on that page. I'm working pretty much at random off that list, so don't feel singled out if others on the list with more images have not yet been notified. Eventualy I'll get around to them all (though hopefully I'm not the only one working on it). Thanks in advance. --Sherool (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC) les 3 mousquetairesSalut, je ne suis pas sur de ce que vous voulez dire au sujet de ces 3 mousquetaires. Si je me rappelle bien, j'ai fait un "upload" de ce photo, puis j'ai realise qu'il y avait toujours le bla-bla francais en bas. Donc j'ai fait un upload d'un autre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:3_Musketeers_cropped.jpg ou, les 3 camarades sont plus individuels. C'est ce dernier qu'on voit, par example, a l'article de Henri Cochet. Cheers, Hayford Peirce 23:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Sports Car RacingDue to your involvement in some Wiki pages that regard sports car racing of some sort, I would like to ask for you to look into the proposed WikiProject for Sports Car Racing. Any help you may have to offer to the project will be greatly appreciated. The359 03:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Broadband Internet access worldwideHi, You reverted Broadband Internet access worldwide. Can you give a reason for the revert please? Thanks. bobblewik 18:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Thumb vs BorderlessHi Marc, I still think borderless is better for infoboxes. I answered on the info box's discussion page as you suggested. --Splette Carlos Ghosn ImageHi Marc, I wanted to discuss Image:Carlos_Ghosn_(Dunod).jpg, because it may not be associated with the right article, and because of this may not be in fair use. The image is of the book <<Comment Carlos Ghosn a sauvé Nissan>>, but it is on the article for Carlos Ghosn. Fair use requires the image to be for an article about the book, not about the subject. I just wanted to let you know. --Guroadrunner 05:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Did you photograph these cameras yourself?Greetings. I'm curious about Image:Olympus Trip 35.jpg and Image:Lubitel 2.jpg. Did you photograph these cameras yourself? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Image uploadsHi. You seem to be uploading a lot of images which are being directly obtained from other online sources where the images are protected by copyright. Please be advised that this is not permissable as the Wikipedia projects are to provide free and open use and re-use of our articles and images and each time a non-free image is uploaded it becomes something we cannot make available. If you continue to upload non-free images you also risk being blocked. --AlisonW 14:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
|
2012 |
|---|
Camera timeline templates missingI see you have been instrumental in creating a lot of templates. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Photography#Camera_timeline_templates_missing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Windows RT Edit War (sigh)Please contribute to the poll on Talk:Windows RT. (You are being asked because you commented on Android.) Tuntable (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC) |
2014 |
|---|
Aircraft fuel economyHello, Marc. I have moved our discussion on this topic from my personal talk page to Talk:Fuel economy in aircraft since I think other authors of that article should be aware of the discussion and participate. Best regards, Coastwise (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image File:Airbus A350 prototype roll out.jpg Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Bicycle gearingThanks for tidying up the table of gear ranges etc. Murray Langton (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
|
2015 |
|---|
Good workThanks for creating those new articles. Once you're finished with your initial work on each page, please add the new articles to Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft) (WP:AIRNEW) within a day or so of creating them, as this will help to inform other aircraft editors about the new articles. If you need any assistance adding these to that pagex feel free to ask. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC) |
2016 |
|---|
|
Hi, welcome to wikipedia: Aviation! Please feel free to use the resources at the wikipedia Aviation pages, in particular at Template:WPAVIATION creator to create/improve your articles. Well done and thank you.--Petebutt (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Length in Variants|The length is informative, but the numbers are included in the tables describing the variants. I kept the qualitative length change in the revision, along with the numbers of seat rows added. I also did some needed grammatical editing. Please discuss before reverting again. Scotteaton92 (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC) Douglas DC-8Please dont edit war on the Douglas DC-8 article, your change was challenged and you were asked to use the talk page but you decided to add the information again, please dont without a consensus, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Why are you removing cited data from the article and replacing it with more out of date information?Nigel Ish (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Page move requestsMarc, I've answered your post on my talk page. Btw, Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions isn't the correct place to post a non-controversial technical request. That is at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Howr, I will contest the move, so the best thing to do is post a move discussion on the article's talk page per WP:RM. I am actually a Page Mover now, so I can perform the move once there's a consensus to do so. - BilCat (talk) 06:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC) While I don't mind your moving the discussion from my talk page to the article's, I've learned the hard way to ask first. Some editors don't like that. Also, I realize we've had some disagreements, but I do believe that you're a good editor. You are doing good work on business aircraft and airliners, and the help with the workload is much appreciated. Please don't let any small disagreements discourage you from contributing. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Lead image changesI noticethat you only left three or four hours before you changed the main image at Britten-Norman Islander, you really need to leave it a lot longer to allow others to commment, seven days is the norm unless you get overwhelming support before that. I also removed your "interesting pictures" post from the Islander talk page, the talk page is not for dumping loads of images, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
November 2016 Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Ahunt (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC) |
2017 | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Orphaned non-free image File:Diamond Dart 450 first flight.jpgNote that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Safiel (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Talkback Message added 20:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. The GA Nom-editor has only edited this article once - I am just trying to make sure that there are other editors/major contributors who are willing to work with me on this GA Review. Shearonink (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Operators articlesThanks for producing the List of Beechcraft King Air operators article but just one point it might be best if we point back to the original articles in the talk so the attribution of who contributed can be kept, they are a number of templates for the talk page have a look at Template:Copied. MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
A cupcake for you!
A barnstar for you!
Boeing 797Boeing 797 has now been created by a new user. Too early? - BilCat (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
re:DABsI have restored the dab again, per guidelines. Edit summaries do not allow for long drawn out conversations, so I could not get any more specific than the policies written specifically for DABS. WP:DDD explicitly says don't include references or external links, in bold letters with a big red X. MOS:DAB says
Comac C919Was your comment at WP:ITNC in support of it being posted. This should be clearly indicated. Before the article is linked from the main page, that orange maintenance tag will need to go. This means that the issues indicated need to be resolved. Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Comac C919 On 6 May 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Comac C919, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Mjroots (talk) 09:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC) Comac C919 archive linksI have made several hundred of these edits, you are the only individual that has reverted the changes, and I have had literally dozens of people thanking me for doing it. The problem with waiting for a link to go dead is that it may never be recoverable. It's very sad that you think that's a good way of dealing with linkrot. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I do understand your will to avoid link rot. Do you understand my will to lower noise in articles?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
You disagree lowering noise have any interest?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I understand you think about Noise (signal processing) while I was talking about Communication noise--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Editing stylesThere is no requirement whatsoever to make a whole heap of pissant little changes when editing a Wikipedia article. YSSYguy (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
May 2017 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)  Marc Lacoste (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI) Request reason: Answering my request, @Bbb23: blocked both, but I didn't break WP:3RR : I reverted three times and stopped there to not breach the rule. Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC) Decline reason: The 3RR rule is an outside limit not an allowance. The bottom line is that you were edit warring and were correctly blocked. Take further editorial disputes to the article talk page. In the event of future edit warring you are likely to be blocked for a longer period whether or not you technically breach 3RR. Just Chilling (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Speedy deletion nomination of File:Scaled Composites Stratolaunch.jpg A tag has been placed on File:Scaled Composites Stratolaunch.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. BilCat (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC) How about.......you, just this once, accept that someone else knows what the fuck he is talking about and that you are wrong. I have read two articles today that state that Norwegian has already been operating 738s across the Atlantic, and that the MAX 8s will gradually replace them and offer more flexibility with respect to payload etc. YSSYguy (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Access Dates in CitationsWhy have you removed the access dates from citations (see here )? The access date helps find the most suitable archive source if the link becomes dead. Scotteaton92 (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
License tagging for File:LMS-9 rendering.pngThanks for uploading File:LMS-9 rendering.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information. To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC) August 2017
 Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. David.moreno72 11:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Removal of my Embraer Phenom 100 picMarc, I am puzzled by your removal of a high quality, entirely relevant, picture that surely enhances the article. The article had five pics, as follows: A lead that is in-flight and blurry, a cabin view, a very poor in-flight pic, a front view and a cockpit view. Please explain how a very high quality side view, that did not exist on the article and that shows the aircraft in detail, needed removing. I have been adding pics since 2003 and would never add a pic that did not enhance the article. I have put up the pic on the right of this text. Best, Adrian, Bristol, England Arpingstone (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
ACROSS Project
Raptor rocket engineHi Marc. I just reverted some updated specifications you added to the Raptor (rocket engine family) article, but only because they lost some important historical information. You had added that into a section on the older IAC 2016 designs, which were approx. 3x as large; so should of course keep the old specs. Just add that info in the section above that, on the 2017 engine designs. I know they are all for a much smaller engine now, but haven't looked at the specs in detail in any source. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Aircraft specsNice article on the Alice mark, but when you use the specs template be aware that attributes with more than two units must be input in the unit system selected or you get the units jumbled and in the wrong format. Thanks--Petebutt (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
"Link suppression"Marc, could you take a look at this edit to Igor Sikorsky, and see if there's a legitimate reason that this entry should be removed? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
FYI: Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Airbus A340Hello Marc! It's BruzerFox. I just wanted to clarify what I was doing on the article, Airbus A340. You were using the "ref name" tag in a way it was not intended to be used. A "ref name" tag must be linked to an inline citation that also defines an identical ref name. What you did instead was make a ref name that did not direct to an inline citation with a "ref name" field, but instead closely matched something in the further reading/bibliography section of the references. Unfortunately, that breaks the reference tag, which was the problem I was trying to fix. I understand what you were trying to do, but readers cannot see the ref name in the inline citation because clicking on it won't take them where you want it to. Always make sure an inline citation is directly linked to the intended source by doing essentially what I did after you. Let me know if you have any further questions. BruzerFox 09:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
TranslationMarc, could you look at the last entry on TFX and translate it to English? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Payload vs range diagrams on aircraft type articlesHi Marc: I have started a discussion on this here. Please join the discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC) ArbCom 2017 election voter message Hello, Marc Lacoste. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) Edit summariesAs a courtesy to other editors reading through page histories, when you add new content in an edit, please title the edit summary appropriately and do not label them as undoing the previous editor’s work. In Special:Diff/814393066, MrBill3 had reverted unsourced additions in contradiction with cited sources. Adding new sources as you did with the following (valuable) Special:Diff/814525777 is not in contradiction with that. Thank you. Ariadacapo (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Piper Malibu and speed recordsOn the one hand finding what you found about the records was a great find. It's certainly something I looked for it and couldn't find and was stymied in my searches of the actual record books to verify with FIA what the record was or is? On the other hand I still have serious problems with the Notions of 395 miles an hour and 430 some miles an hour being possible in a Piper Malibu. Did you google the tail number? First off there's three records they talk about. The first one at 259 miles an hour seems at least reasonable although it is above what the factory claims as top speed. Although I noticed on this page they don't include the base model Malibu in the performance data I have looked up pilot handbook and I could imagine that speed being possible with some kind of wind assist and considering they were flying from west to east with the prevailing westerlies and possibly reaching higher winds Aloft as soon as possible they could do that. It would have to be flying at over 20,000 ft. One of the points I was making was the fact that that airplane crashed later that same here when the pilot got disoriented in a thunderstorm lost control of the plane into a dive and rip the Wings off of it. The NTSB report says the IAS (indicated air speed) was 230mph I read two different accounts of the crash including the NTSB report which doesn't say a single thing about the airplane being modified at all. That airplane was a stock Piper Malibu. For some reason the NTSB report doesn't give a manufacturer's date but since it is a Malibu it has to be somewhere between 1982 and 1987. In 1998 they manufactured the Mirage which had different engines. The Malibu had the least powerful engines of the entire line of the pa-46 type. There is no way in hell an unmodified Piper Malibu reaches those kind of speeds. In fact at 435 miles an hour that'd be a plane you put in the unlimited class at the Reno Air Races up against the Mustangs Bearcats corsairs and the like. I even had a guy on the phone a couple of hours ago Who belongs to the Malibu Mirage flyers and Owners Association. He was a little less forthcoming then it could have been because for some reason he got suspicious of my motives for asking these questions and having so much information about the plane and the and the crash. He thought I was a lawyer or representing someone else but he had in the beginning said that he had run in the high 300 in his plane with a strong Tailwind this year but then he admitted that it was a late model turboprop version of the plane that has 100 miles an hour more max Cruise speed. She started to say well if you had enough Tailwind you could get above 400 but he stopped and thought about it and thought no maybe not that's just too high a difference between the never exceed speeds and any conditions are altitudes that you could get to 435 miles an hour. I still think it's somebody's simple conversion error and what they mean is kilometers per hour knot in miles per hour. I'm going to email another guy at that club and see if I can get him to address what was printed in that 1992 issue and where they may have gotten that information. But I'm telling you, the kind of Tailwind that would be necessary for 395 miles an hour and 435 miles an hour it's just virtually impossible to get on an aircraft that'll come apart at 230-240 miles an hour indicated airspeed. The actual airspeed indicator on the airplane has a red line at 198 knots which is 227 miles per hour. With a service ceiling of 25000 feet you couldn't get it into the jet stream to get a hundred not Tailwind or maybe even more. It almost all aircraft the altitude at which you can go the fastest is always somewhat less than the absolute ceiling of the aircraft. It's advertised top speeds are probably around 20,000 feet. The end of the green area on the airspeed indicator is at 198 miles per hour. Above that You are yellow and then you are red at 230. I'm going to try to do a calculation on what ground speed would be at 230 miles an hour indicated AirSpeed at 25000 feet but I can tell you it's going to be 100 to maybe as much as a 180 miles an hour short 435 miles an hour. I want to make sure you understand what indicated AirSpeed is and what never exceed limits are and you should Google that tail number and find out just how it came apart just a few months after this single place claims they set speed records a couple of them were only 3 days apart. The NTSB report indicates plane literally came apart and the wreckage was strewn over four miles. The wings were literally miles from the fuselage. It didn't break up near the ground it broke up at 10 or 11 thousand feet at what was probably 232 to 50 miles an hour indicated airspeed. Okay now I feel like I'm beating a dead horse but we are in the talk section. There is a source what's on the page. Parts Source is from a 25 year old publication from flying Club. I wouldn't exactly call it reliable. No, I wouldn't call it reliable at all. In my conversation with the club member he wouldn't even entertain the idea of trying to verify what was in that month's issue. As I told him I only called their phone number because I was out of options. I had a feeling I was going to meet a bit of resistance and arrogance and that's exactly what I found. The people that own these planes are investor class all the way and when I started talking about never exceed limits and the fact that plane had crashed months later I think he really thought I was mining information for some kind of lawsuit or something. He got irritable and suspicious and stopped even attempting to answer questions that I had reasoned out in advance. But a single source still has to obey the laws of physics. If it's not possible I can't be fact. What's the article says the records we're certified and one of the questions I have is just how much of a Tailwind would they even accept in a record-setting run of a civilian aircraft. I doubt they would have found 150 not Tailwind acceptable for a record. None of this makes any sense. In an aircraft at all times it's actually Sir Isaac Newton in the pilot seat. I've been doing correction editing at Wikipedia for a long time. There are a couple of topics that I'm a little finicky about. One is motorcycles from the 70s and 80s and the other is flying. I grew up around here pair bases my father was a carrier fighter & dive bomber pilot. I can see his 1953 issued G1 leather flight jacket would be Associated patches from where I sit because I'm in the process of selling it. But on another topic says well I use Wikipedia as an information source and Wikipedia's suffering an image problem. People are increasingly scoffing when you use Wikipedia as a source for a fact or base of an opinion and I find myself all the time trying to explain how Wikipedia works and how it works to self-correct. Credibility has deteriorated in recent years fairly or unfairly. And I think fairly and I think this is an example of clinging too hard to something that doesn't need to be in the article, something that is extreem and outlandish on its face. It's the kind of thing that needs a very credible Source if not a multiple source. World flying records are a big deal and we shouldn't be accepting the word of a single article in a flying Club Magazine as credible proof that this belongs in an article in an airplane that has a stock cruising speed of 170 190 miles an hour. If you look at the list of the records on that page the 395 and 437 numbers are extreme outliers. This was not a modified airplane. If it was it would have been mentioned in the NTSB report. Airframe modifications in and engine modifications would have been noted by NTSB. And they would have been considered as a possible cause of the crash because the cause was structural failure. Realistically there's no amount of modifications that would explain that kind of speed. The only possible explanation would be extreme Tailwind and I've already outlined the problems with that theory.There is a mistake here. I don't attribute it to somebody purposely trying to falsify data to satisfy the egos of Piper Malibu owners, I'd rather attributed to a mistake. If it's a mistake it doesn't belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackhammer111 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 The article BBAM has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing Wikiwings
A page you started (List of Pilatus PC-12 operators) has been reviewed!Thanks for creating List of Pilatus PC-12 operators, Marc Lacoste! Wikipedia editor Babymissfortune just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
To reply, leave a comment on Babymissfortune's talk page. Learn more about page curation. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 15:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC) |
_at_RIAT_Fairford_13July2017_arp.jpg)
.jpg)
2018 |
|---|
Ways to improve DieselJetHi, I'm Icewhiz. Marc Lacoste, thanks for creating DieselJet! I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This needs better independent sourcing. I don't see much in my BEFORE. The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Help needet for Pilatus PC-24Dear, Marc You worked on Pilatus Aircraft Pages, also in the one about the PC-24. That is why I am asking you. Yesterday i updated, because of HB-VSC, the number of built PC-24 from 4 to 5. The reference to the FOCA List was already there. But some on people undo my Update all the time, also when i used Avia News from 24 heuers or add the link to the FOCA registera second time.. (Use PC24 in the field ICAO Aircraft Type. And you can See all 5reg.of the so gar built and flown PC-24) Can you Help? Thank you.178.197.231.203 (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
T900 and T901 articlesMarc, do you have any plans to create articles for the ATEC T900 and while General Electric T901 engines? I think there is enough information already in the Advanced Affordable Turbine Engine and Advanced Turbine Engine Company articles to create articles. I've been considering creating drafts at Draft:ATEC T900 and Draft:General Electric T901 to work on them at a slower pace, but I didn't want to duplicate your efforts if you already had offline drafts. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Beluga XLMarc, it still needs fixing. Best. Superp (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Non-free rationale for File:TechnifyMotorsLogo.png Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:TechnifyMotorsLogo.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale. If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC) Skylab reportsHi! I'm in the midst of sorting out what happened on Skylab 4, particularly with respect to a rumored Skylab mutiny which, so far, I haven't been able to find any mention of before Cooper 1976. I'm keen to find lengthy, semi-detailed summaries of the mission(s) such as the October 1974 National Geographic article, including details about the scheduling difficulties the Skylab 4 crew had. I saw you offered access to AWST at WP:SHARED, and I think they might have some interesting articles including one from March 18, 1974 and surely others that round-up information. Any help on this front is much appreciated. -- ke4roh (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC) Boeing-Embraer joint ventureIn your edit of Boeing-Embraer joint venture, Thank you for mentioning and linking the two sources in the edit summary. For future use, please note the desired wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., French translation helpMarc, I reverted this edit as being incorrect. Google Translator confirms that "dolphin" in French is dauphin, as well as the French term for an heir apparent (crown prince). Do you know of any sources that clarify which meaning Aérospatiale intended with the name? I know the US Coast Guard version is named "Dolphin, but that's not necessarily proof. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
DaherMarc, could you take a look at the Daher article? Some recent additions are written in poor English, apparently by a French speaker, and I'm not sure what they mean. For example, "two key players in the supply of equipment for nuclear islands." Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC) From looking at fr:Daher, it appears the IP users copied the history section of that article, and machine-translated it. - BilCat (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
The article List of current production certified light aircraft has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing Diamond DART 280 MTOWBonjour, Il y a une erreur de conversion dans l'article de Flight Global. Soit la masse de 1350 kg est correcte et cela fait ≈2980 lb soit la masse de 2500 lb est correcte et cela fait ≈1135 kg. Loran O (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
More French helpHi Marc, could you take a look at Patrouille de France? Now-banned User:OJOM, a French speaker with limited English skills, made a number of edits to the article, leaving the English quite mangled in places. The fourth paragraph in the Lead is especially confusing. Thanks for whatever you can do, as you have time. - BilCat (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Removal of Gulfstream picMarc, I need to check what you meant by "the point was to illustrate the cited "Tanzanian Government" G550, not to have another picture, so I removed it if you think technical quality was too low. I'm sorry I don't want to block you". On Wikipedia, as you know, to block means that the person is blocked from editing for a time. Is that what you think may happen if I make, in your opinion, another "mistake". Perhaps you meant you were sorry to seem to be blocking my addition of pics? Just for your information I have around 2000 pics on WP and have been adding pics since 2002, specialising on aircraft. My reason for adding the pic was because the article has no exact side view of the G550 so I disagree with its removal. Maybe it should have been placed elsewhere in the article? Best wishes, Arpingstone (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Paris Air showCan you explain why you deleted my submission about 1967 Documentary Film? Quickscan1 22:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry. Brain perhaps in reverse. Mcewan (talk) 06:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:Cessna Skycourier cabin.jpg Thanks for uploading File:Cessna Skycourier cabin.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject). If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC) File:Cessna Skycourier cabin.jpg listed for discussion ArbCom 2018 election voter messageHello, Marc Lacoste. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Hi Marc, could you activate the already present A350-900 ULR in the spreadsheet so that it's visible in the actual comparison? The diagram seems mixed up or I didn't really get it... Thanks, --Rabenkind (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
December 2018Bye Aerospace is listed in Category:Citation overkill, I'm just trying to clear the backlog in that category. Please see WP:CITEBUNDLE for more information. The article will remain in that category until the issue is addressed, which I tried to do. Maybe instead of reverting an improvement to the article, you could fix the issue yourself. Thanks.
Additionally - McDonnell Douglas MD-11 is listed in Category:Pages with missing references list, another category I'm working on trying to clear the backlog in. Your edit here where you removed a reference - created a Cite error: The named reference Swansong was invoked but never defined - as can be seen in the reference section. Please go fix the cite error that you created in that article. If you use the Show Preview button, it will help prevent future mistakes like this. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Vertical (or partially vertical) citation templatesHi Marc, I'm a bit puzzled by your partial reversion of my edits to Lion Air Flight 610, insofar as I opened up some of the citation templates. When wikitext becomes overly dense with citation templates, it becomes much more difficult to edit. The citation template documentation shows a vertical layout of the template with parameters for this reason, in addition to the block layout. I do not understand how this makes it appreciably more difficult to compare versions of the article (or section). It anything, the vertical layout helps the viewer distinguish between text and template edits. I have done the same thing in many articles I have edited over many years. I have seen other experienced editors do the same thing, which is how I got the idea of doing it. So far as I know, this is the first time that another editor objected. I welcome your response. Are you related to the designer of the iconic "alligator" shirt?—Finell 23:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
December 2018
Madavor Media moved to draftspaceAn article you recently created, Madavor Media, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " Cheers!!!!
|
_lands_at_RIAT_Fairford_7July2016_arp.jpg)
2019 |
|---|
A380 fuel capacity conversionsMarc, I could see your logic if the conversions provided by the {{convert}} template did not quite match those in the source (due to rounding or whatever), but in this case they are identical. And at least with the template we get properly formatted numbers with non-breaking spaces in the right places. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of Elroy Air for deletion The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elroy Air until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Let's bring it here.Hello, I don't want to discuss my position and other topics in too much detail in a public talk of the article, I don't want to make it look like we're fighting, so I'm bringing it here. I Hope you agree with this, otherwise just delete it.
To answer to your questions:
One example of incorrectness in the discussed article would be the placement of mention of "Taurus G4" - it was not a light aircraft, but just experimental. It was never commercially available, only one was ever produced. One of the most recent corrections I suggested where actual fact are wrong was in another article: Talk:Taurus
I think first we have to agree what sort of information you think is of good enough quality to go into the article. I can see there are mentions such as "In 2013 Chip Yates demonstrated that the world's fastest electric plane, a Long ESA"... without any proof of the claim, but here "world's fastest" is apparently okay.
Then there are mentions such as: "In September 2017, UK budget carrier EasyJet announced it was developing an electric 180-seater for 2027 with Wright Electric." or "Founded in 2016, US Wright Electric did built a two-seat proof-of-concept with 272 kg (600 lb) of batteries, and believes they can be scaled up". Why is this information of good enough quality? In what way does an Easy Jet announcement differ from a Pipistrel announcement, or even a Pipistrel completed achievement?
I'm not sure if you realise what an important and difficult milestone is adding each another seat in aviation. That's why the first electric 2-seater and first electric 4-seater are every important events.
"Note nobody here should claim to be an WP:expert, some people are knowledgeable" I never said you (or anybody else) claimed so. I made that statement more to highlight the fact that I most certainly am not one, but instead prefer to leave the actual editing to people who are far more knowledgeable and experienced than me. If you wish to cooperate with me, do the judgement and then help me with the editing where I point out mistakes or weak points, you'd do me an immense favour and honour. Thanks in advance!
"And if you want to better understand wikipedia's editing process, maybe you could try to edit areas where you have no COI" To be perfectly honest, I don't really have any interest in doing so. What I'm trying to do now is enough of a headache as it is, thank you. :) And thanks for the compliment, we try our best. :) If you want any additional information or material, I can give you my company e-mail address and we can discuss it further in private. Thanks! Ymmo (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC) File:Cessna SkyCourier model, EBACE 2018, Le Grand-Saconnex.jpg listed for discussionFile:Cessna 408 SkyCourier model.jpg listed for discussionBoeing 747-400Hi Marc, just want to know why you removed picture of
File:GE9X cutaway.jpg listed for discussionMaquetteHi Marc, I have a French translation question: In File:Maquette UDF - Musée Safran.jpg, does maquette best translated "model" or "mockup"? Also, that file is very large, and a cropped version would probably be beneficial for the General Electric GE36 page, if you feel like doing that. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
A page you started (Sabrewing Rhaegal) has been reviewed!Thanks for creating Sabrewing Rhaegal. I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer. WP:CITEVARPlease explain what gives you the right to force your preferred reference style on an article in contravention of WP:CITEVAR?Nigel Ish (talk) 09:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
LaunchYou reverted this edit. I had discussed the ambiguity of launch on the article's talk page. Trying again here. Launch means start. In this case it is the start och a full scale development project. For a product, it could easily be construed as referring to the start of availability on the market. --Ettrig (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
File:Sabrewing Rhaegal.png listed for discussionThanksThanks for your contribution to the groundings article. Shencypeter (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC) Article sourcesHello, I'll reply to [ Talk:Boeing 737 MAX groundings#New external links ], here as it veers off-topic. I prefer aviation journals/media as well over the superficial popular media (generalist as you say). The articles I cited on ET302 are from TheAirCurrent, LeehamNews, AvHerald. Regarding Peter Lemme, I've also took a deeper look into WP:PRIMARY, and found: "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia". He's getting some visibility in The Seattle Times: "The expert, Peter Lemme, a Kirkland-based former Boeing flight-controls engineer who is now an avionics and satellite-communications consultant, has no direct personal knowledge of the airplane’s development or certification but he did a detailed analysis of the October crash of a Lion Air 737 MAX. He was extensively cited as an expert in The Seattle Times, and subsequently in multiple press accounts, including in The New York Times."[1] So i've added an entry to: [ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Peter Lemme ], in hope of getting some responses.
Just as interesting stuff: he also had a conference presentation recently (video,[2] slides[3]) Aron M🍁 (➕) 05:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
References
Boeing 747 MAX groundingsHi Marc, in case it slipped by you, this is just to call your attention to the fact that you are close to an editwar with Don. May I suggest you discuss it on the article talk page before making another reversion that would tip you into WP:3RR. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:ANI – Multiple repeated reverts that resulted in page protection, then continued on related page
You are invited to further discuss your edits. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 05:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 06:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Photo From Wikipedia CommonsSo you changed the infobox photo a few days back, I thought you might enjoy seeing it picked up here:
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
CitationsI noticed that each of your edits make changes to citations date vs access date. Is this automatic? Shencypeter (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
777X engine test issueHi Marc,
I'm not sure I understand the logic in your revert :
A gentle suggestionWe bumped into each other on the 747-400 page. I made an accurate change. You reverted it, because it wasn't listed as such in one source. I provided a second source, and there we are. I was curious, so I looked at your edit history. You contribute a lot to Wikipedia, and that's laudable. You're clearly passionate about aviation articles, and that's great, as well. It's a great resource because people like you work hard at it. That said, though, based on your edit history, you revert with considerable frequency. Some 20-25% of your last 500 edits are straight reverts or "undos." I think that's problematic. I understand that Wikipedia needs verifiable information. You've cited WP:V a number of times as your basis for action. That's important, and I see your argument that you're following that. However, that's not the only policy governing such matters, and you shouldn't ignore other policies in the pursuit of one. Consider WP:ROWN (revert only when necessary). This policy's language is just as important, I'd argue, to the functioning and growth of the open encyclopedia, and here are a few highlights of what it says:
I'm not complaining about this primarily on my behalf. Mine was straightforward enough to fix, and you were right that the edit, as first done, implied that it was found within the source cited. However, I do see cases where you've reverted good-faith edits that probably added something of value, but you just didn't like them. That, I would argue, is going too far. One specific that springs to mind was your reversion of an edit on the 767-X section of an article, where you excised a reference to the 747 ASB, which was at least a relevant comparison. Just because you hadn't heard of the ASB doesn't mean it wasn't a thing. It was, and it was indeed an effort to find a compact jumbo. My point is, wholesale reversion can be seen as unthoughtful and discouraging contributions, and we're not here to do that. We have tools like {{fact}}, {{dubious}}, and {{better source}}, among many others, to help us identify issues and point us as a whole community toward things that need to be fixed. However, fixing doesn't necessarily mean wiping away others' good-faith efforts. WP:V says that everything has to be verifiable. It doesn't say that unsourced contributions must be immediately swept aside without an effort to corroborate them. My request of you is only this: slow down on the reverts that aren't vandalism. We have W:AGF for a reason. Perhaps you could help find sources for others' contributions, rather than simply vanishing them. This is just my opinion. I'm not seeking to start an argument, only to urge you consider another perspective and tact. I'm nowhere near as prolific as you are, but I've been here just as long, and that's my two cents. Cheers. Sacxpert (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Do328NeuDear, I recently added a few bits to the Do 328 article, regarding the type's (supposedly!) restart in Leipzig. Only later did I realise you had already been active on the same grounds - my bad to not look out first! Please be welcome to review/edit my actions as you see appropriate. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Airbus cost with inflationHi Marc, I noticed your addition of inflation on the A320 program cost. However, your calculation takes Flight's 1984 GBP estimate, or more specifically Flight's conversion of that amount to dollars at 1984 exchange rates, then applies US inflation to it, which makes no sense to me. Airbus's costs are in € today, or largely in FRF (and DEM) as of 1984, so surely we should be taking the GBP estimate, converting it to FRF at 1984 rates, applying French inflation to it, then converting back to dollars at today's exchange rate. Quite how to do that with wikipedia templates and calculations I'm not sure (particularly as the {{Inflation}} template doesn't offer French or Euro inflation, though it does offer UK or Germany). The differences could be quite significant – for example, if I apply UK inflation directly to the 1984 dollar amount, I get a result of $9 bn instead of $7 bn. Given how much difference is involved, might it be better to remove the inflated amount altogether? For that matter, more fundamentally, should we really be presenting Flight's 1984 estimate of the amount needed to fund the launch and certification as if it were the actual program cost? Rosbif73 (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Marc, what does the FL-360-660 means on this schematic file? Best regards! Oesjaar (talk) 07:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
|
.jpg){kind=small}
2020 |
|---|
February 2020
Why?Do we need tranclusions here? - BilCat (talk) 07:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC) CanvassingThis canvassing is inappropriate. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC) B737 revertMarc, I note that you reverted the edits regarding 737 O&Ds for a second time. Please, please read the references. These substantiate the changes. If you are having trouble deciphering the refs then that work has been done for you in the table: Competition between Airbus and Boeing#Commercial airliners still in operation. At the moment, Wikipedia is contradicting itself between these two pages. This is not OR, only existing references in WP and the table derived from them have been used. Whatever, the comment about how many 737s were flying in 2006 just has to go. Ex nihil (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
A380 ultraSir may I know why you deleted my edit Of A380 ultra I have sourced about Please tell me Ktdk (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
WHOISHi Marc, I am currently trying to write a new article, and I was wondering that if I used a WHOIS reference to prove when a domain was registered (a crucial part of the story I am trying to write) is that considered reliable or not? As it's my first article, I don't want to have it shot down for one reference... Thanks (PS: I have several others, but I'm not sure if not including this will cause me issues!) --EtaPravda (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Boeing CAVThe Wikipedians work together, we encourage, don’t discourage each other, we help instead of frustrating others. It was a short article about a minor subject. It was a small single rule topped by a bigger principle. I explained it, we discussed. You’re experienced, because you work for Wikipedia since 16 years. I’m sure you’re not an employee of Boeing and you don’t want to create an advertisement for free. We know each other a little bit, because we work here on similar subjects sometimes. I wish and hope there’ll be no more edit war again, because it helps no one. This case is not only solved after you deleted our discussion. Please let’s work together more cooperative and polite in the future. --Leo067 (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Boeing NeXt and other thingsPlease tell and explain me what you mean with 'don't break the layout'. Tell me why you look and change what I did here, 5 minutes after I've finished it. My proposal: There's the important article personal air vehicle, which need a lot of links and citations. There you can work as long and as much as you want and translate it to french afterwards. For sure the discussion Boeing CAV says much more about you and your behaviour than the CAV, so please move it back to here,the discussion of your personal profile and of course you DID delete it here. I'm really tired to see you're trying to annoy me each time possible. Why do you do it? There's no reason. --Leo067 (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Op-edsHi Marc, I've seen that you've contributed significantly to Wikipedia over the years. I am thinking of writing an article on wikipedia, but I'm currently gathering my sources. I've noticed that the person I'm writing about has written several op-eds on various topics he believes in. If I were to do a section on his ideologies, could I use those as a reference seeing as how they're written by him? Thanks in advance! --Choicom (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Rochefort, France questionHi Marc, I have a DAB question for you regarding Rochefort. It's used in SOCATA Horizon#Design and development, but points to the DAB page. That's not very helpful as we have 12 articles about Rocheforts in France! Do you happen to know which one would be correct, without doing a lot of research? Rochefort isn't mentioned in either the Sud Aviation or Aérospatiale articles, nor the French Gardan GY-80 article. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Aviation accidents and incidents and non-English linksHi! I saw in this link a trimming of non-English links. In relation to aviation accidents and incidents, I would strongly advise against removing non-English versions of accident reports if the report was originally written in a language other than English. Many aviation accident agencies note in English translations of reports that if the meaning of the translation conflicts with that of the original, the original has supremacy. The links need to be there even if the reports are in a language not as well understood by many readers, since that *is* the original and the "legal" version. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Photo croppingHi Marc, is there any way you could make a cropped version of File:JGSDF AH-64D（74506） APG-78 Longbow millimeter-wave fire-control radar.JPG for me?? I want to show the radar and the rotor hub, but not as much sky on sky on the top? The current photo is really too long for the infobox on AN/APG-78 Longbow. I'm in no hurry if it's something you can't do right away. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
French punctuation issueSee Talk:Sud_Aviation#Hyphen. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC) As a courtesy to other contributors, could we discuss complicated or controversial issues on the talk page, not in our edit summaries...I direct your attention to Talk:Canadair_CL-415#article-ectomy I said there that I think your use of the {{mergeto}} tag lapsed from policy. I routinely find myself requesting other contributors to discuss complicated or controversial issues on the talk page, not in our edit summaries. Why? Because when complicated or controversial issues are explained solely in an edit summary it serves as a trigger for edit warring. Parties who don't agree, or who just don't understand the edit are very strongly tempted to respond in kind, to leave their rebuttal in their edit summary, when they revert the edit. Instant edit war. These kinds of discussions aren't easily understood by third parties -- sometimes they can't be understood at all. And, or course, third parties don't even know they should be looking at the edit summaries for explanations that really belong on the talk page. Even the warring parties often can no longer follow their own discussions if they return to them weeks or months later. So, please, never do this again. Geo Swan (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC) Partenavia P.68Hi. You think the gallery is not the best way, but to watch half page blank is worst !Chesipiero (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
About the templateHello, this is concerning the edit I made on Natilus, and I just want to thank you for the correction. Your comment was insightful and I learned from that. After encountering some articles that are self published and mostly with press released sources containing promotional content, I thought the source was the same. It was good to know that it doesnt apply to all. Once again, thanks. HotTomatoe (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC) ATRBonjour. Pourriez-vous m'expliquer la raison de suppression de la mention d'Air Saint Pierre sur la page ATR en anglais sous «Civilian operators» ? En vous remerciant. Ngagnebin (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Please follow MOSNUM guidanceYour proposal to use a unicode superscript ² instead of <sup>2</sup> has been clearly rejected at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Please do not change from the later to the former as you did at Environmental impact of aviation. If further conversions of this type occur I will seek out administrators to intervene. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
|
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
2021 | ||
|---|---|---|
Otto Celera 500LThank you for adding better sources to the article. I've been meaning to circle back to this one but I got sidetracked (story of my life). Carguychris (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of File:Eviation Alice.pngA tag has been placed on File:Eviation Alice.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. BilCat (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
ZeroAviaHi Marc Lacoste, I've noticed that you have contributed to the page on Hydrogen-powered aircraft. I have recently created a page on ZeroAvia. Could you please take a look, maybe offer your suggestions, edits. Thank you! --Verbal.noun (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Confused fleet sizeHello Marc! I just wondering, how many total fleets of Delta Air Lines? I'm so confused of their fleets. Someone editing in Delta Air Lines Wikipedia about fleet size is 824, and I check them in Delta Air Lines fleets, it's a total of 775/776. And in planespotter.com, it has 824+. So, I was wondering how many in total of Delta Air Lines fleet size? Thanks for your help! Apple 3002 (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Okayy.. can I ask where? In planespotter.com or in their website? Thanks for your clarify! Apple 3002 (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh okay.. thanks for your clarify! I clearly understand now! :DD Apple 3002 (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC) File:Airbus A321XLR.jpg listed for discussionAvWeek NMA articlesHi Marc, I assume you have access to AvWeek's pay-walled articles, as you posted information from Boeing Moves Forward With Airbus A321XLR-Competitor Plan into the Boeing New Midsize Airplane article. (I don't have paywall access.) Could you look at Boeing Makes Moves On Airbus A321XLR Competitor Plan, and see if it contains most of the same imfo as the pay-walled article? If it does, it might be a better source to use in our NMA article. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
HelpHi Marc! It's me again. I just saw the San Francisco International Airport, Isacra121416 removing of some headings of the page. And, I'm trying to edit it back but, I'm using my cellphone and I also tired to edit it back. And yet, I also don't know how to undid revision code.. can you please help me? Apple 3002 (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Okay then. Thank you! :)) Apple 3002 (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC) BBJ revertOK, but why? Now we are back to two conflicting lists, one incomplete. What is your point? Ex nihil (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Tom Vice, Aerion CEO ... notable?Seeing as you seem active in the world of aviation with some similar interests to my own, I wanted to discuss this with you in particular. Reading about Aerion Corporation lately, I've seen a few pieces of news about the CEO, Tom Vice, but I see no Wikipedia article about him specifically. In my experience, if a topic has no article, there's usually a reason -- not notable. So I wanted to get your take on this before I waste any more time looking further into it. Central Midfielder (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Aircraft eraHello. You should check the other pages, because that's where those links came from. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC) Breeze AirwaysJust FYI, per WP:NOTCRYSTAL, I've temporarily hidden the text you added to 2021 in aviation discussing the incipient start of Breeze Airways flights. Although many sources do indicate that flights will begin on 27 May, it is at this point still a future event, and unforeseen circumstances could potentially delay the launch. Carguychris (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC) Société de Construction AéroNavaleHi Marc, I have a French capitalization question for you: The French Wikipedia article is titled fr:Société de construction aéronavale, but is spelled "Société de Construction AéroNavale" in the lead. Are both correct forms? I'm looking into creating the article for English Wikipedia, but I'm unsure how it should be capitalized in English. SCAN is unavailable as a title, so it'll probably have to go at the complete name. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC) I'd create a short stub right now to prevent an anal-retentive IP from deleting the link as it's doing here, but then some anal-retentive regular would probably AfD it! Sigh. BilCat (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Boeing 777XHello @Marc Lacoste:! Does Boeing 777X not specify the variant of Boeing 777-8 and Boeing 777-9? I seen edit on Emirates fleet and they change and the reason why because Boeing O&D does not specify the Boeing 777-9 variant. Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 11:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@Marc Lacoste: hmmm okay. It just weird why they say Boeing O&D and Emirates doesn't specify the variant. Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC) Passenger layout@Marc Lacoste: Why are you persisting in posting information that you know to be out-of-date, and reverting edits that quote more recent data? FFS the entire industry, except you, appears to know that the 777-9 can seat more than 414 pax. Don't you believe Boeing? DaveReidUK (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Use of convert templatesHi Marc, regarding your revert, convert templates can serve a number of purposes, including ensuring that the presentation of measurements complies with our Manual of Style, and that the conversion is numerically correct (which isn't always the case for conversions that have been done manually, and it is tedious to check tens to hundreds of such conversions in an article that has a lot of measurements). In this case, the convert template will also automatically add a non-breaking space before the unit symbol, which is required by the MoS, and ensures that when rendered on any device, the line will not break between e.g. "11" and "m": 11 m. In any case, there is very very rarely a situation in which including a convert template will make an article worse; the code behind the template is versatile enough that you can accommodate any common usage using it. Archon 2488 (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Hi. I know very well the convert templates. You misuse it: there was no need for conversion as the numbers were already converted, presumably from a reliable source. When there are multiple choices, you don't know if the source number was metric or Imperial, so you risk an additional rounding error. If all you want to do is to add non breaking spaces (they were already present) use the Orphaned non-free image File:Cessna 408 SkyCourier model.jpgNote that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
"Winterthur Gas & Diesel" listed at Redirects for discussion
Files listed for discussion
Thank you. Whpq (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC) Pratt & Whitney Canada PW900Hi Marc, I have a question re: this deletion. Did you remove it solely because we don't have an article on it? It is an actual product, an APU family per this PWC page. I added it to the product list years ago (pre-table), but never got around to creating an article. While mostly invisible, APUs do exist, and the individual products probably should be covered somewhere on Wikipedia. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Image helpHi Marc, could you look at File:Pelican-01.jpg? It's listed for deletion for not having the correct copyright tag, and I don't know which one to use. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Ways to improve Embraer Short Take Off Utility TransportHello, Marc Lacoste, Thank you for creating Embraer Short Take Off Utility Transport. I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer. Citations from English magazine or newspaper articlesHello Marc, I remember having a discussion a while back on citation accuracy from English language publications where the units have probably been converted from the SI, I believe it was on the Falcon 7X article. Here are some examples I came across. I hope the links still work. Here are three examples of the same place with different areas of the supposedly same mosaic in an 8th century Palace near Jericho. The picture from AP news shows 827 m2, conveniently close to 8900 ft2. The second is in the text below the picture where it becomes 930 m2 (10000 ft2). You have to hover over the picture or click on it to see the text. https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-middle-east-travel-israel-west-bank-2407e36f6e4302f2670798720008a457 Looking at Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hisham%27s_Palace it’s 836 m2 (8998 ft2). The source here is from the Guardian in the UK with the source as Agence France Press (AFP).https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/28/huge-restored-mosaic-unveiled-in-jericho-desert-castle So which one is accurate? It seems possible the earlier text on the picture of 827 m2 but conveniently rounded to a nice round number in the latter two examples. This just proves that using a US or British source for referencing facts can easily lead you astray because the author will always round measurements up or down to some nice round number in their non metric units. Avi8tor (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
RevertsHi Marc, we had some strong, partly unfriendly discussions. I wanted to say that most of your edits are ok. Merry christmas. 95.91.246.145 (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
|
_concept.png){kind=link}
