User talk:Fnlayson/Archive 9

Meaning of OTA
Hi. You reverted my edit on the Hubble Telescope article as I quoted another WP article. Thanks for correcting me, I agree that is not a valid source. However, the actual edit is correct. OTA means Optical Tube Assembly in astronomy. It is only part of a telescope. See, for example, on these telescope manufacturer's sites; https://uk.telescope.com/Telescopes/Telescope-Optical-Tube-Assemblies/pc/1306/1323.uts https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/skywatcher-optical-tube-assemblies.html https://optcorp.com/collections/optical-tube-assemblies-ota https://www.firstlightoptics.com/optical-tube-assemblies.html https://www.celestron.com/collections/optical-tubes Thanks Point of Presence  talk  23:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * OK but this should be discussed on the relevant (Hubble) talk page instead so others will [see] it and participate. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ok sure. will do. thanks Point of Presence  talk  07:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Good, thanks -Fnlayson (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So just in terms of process, what happens next? Do I wait a few months and if no one contradicts I just make the edit? How does it work? Cheers. Point of Presence  talk  19:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe wait a week then proceed per WP:Be bold. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

GA Review of Su-57
Hi there. I've conducted a GA review of the Sukhoi Su-57 and I've listed some of my reasons for why it doesn't qualify and should be delisted until further improvement. I would like to hear your feedback on the matter. Steve7c8 (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Where do you want to post such comments? I'm not sure I have much to add. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To be frank, I’m not sure. I simply don’t want to unilaterally change the rating of an article without having some kind of consensus or approval from someone with administrative capacity. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I have some extra user rights but all below admin level. This Review seems like a good plan to me.  I suggest to ask for review input at WT:Air. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Survey about History on Wikipedia
I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking, but I'm not interested. And I've been on Wikipedia too long to remember all my motivations when I started. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
 Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!


 * Have a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! -Fnlayson (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The WikiEagle - January 2022
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Alabama
I notice your edit at Alabama. You may wish to comment at Talk:Texas. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I commented there. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Lockheed AC-130 edit reversion
Hi there,

I’m a little confused about what I did incorrectly while updating the number of AC-130s in service, could you explain further? I only make good faith edits so this is the first time I believe an edit of mine has been reverted. Dynen (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * You should read the edit summaries in article history. As I stated in my edit summary, numbers in service are usually covered in the Operators section (or somewhere in body of article). And you did not add an source with your edit per WP:VERIFY. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

M1 Abrams Tank edit
Take a look on the Polish Army article, it says they are going to buy them. They aren't just planning to, they are --DBenner29 (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)DBenner29


 * They are not really an operator until they place an order (sign a contact). Wanting or planning to do something can fall through. -Fnlayson (talk) ‎06:17, 5 February 2022‎  (UTC)

Starship
Given your activity at Falcon 9 and other SpaceX topics, I think you would be interested at this thread at Wikiproject Spaceflight. Regards, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

F-35 & B61
Is there a reason why the B-61 capability does not seem to be in the F-35 article and others covered here:. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Probably because the B61 has not been fully cleared for service. Use the article's talk page if you want to discuss this more. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Dire Straits, Discography section format
MOS:PSEUDOHEAD says semicolon for bold markup is reserved for "description lists'. Jennica ✿ / talk 01:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC) 01:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I just changed it to a level 3 section label to avoid bold and semicolon formatting. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts
Wondered if you can add anything to this circular Discussion – In short the debate is over aircraft receiving individual entries into a table vs. a single entry (notability issue) as it seems to conflict with aircraft ID's - FOX 52 talk! 04:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi! (family name)
Are you related to Kenneth Finlayson in any way? I've seen your edits quite a bit around military articles where I usually edit and came across his name several times for the articles he's written for Veritas. I wondered if there was a connection. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 21:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Not that I know of. Our part of the family is from [detail removed] Alabama. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Fnlayson Ahh, alright.  Was just curious. Thanks! Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 06:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

NASA article [changes, etc]
Fnlayson, I am the editor (SpaceHist65) that made the structural changes to the NASA article in the last 4-6 weeks to move it back in direction of (hopefully) a good article (in part to fix the restructure template that had been applied to article). No one had constructively updated the article for content in something approaching years. Changes/fixes flagged today were intended to identify items that would assist in potential re-assessment. Reorder was a minor re-alignment in the Research area to elevate research to a level consistent with flight program and re-order to bin similar topics together. Happy to collaborate if there is interest. Hasn't been shown in the article or talk for quite some time. SpaceHist65 (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It appeared to me you were excessively tagging the article and it was not clear how and why you were reorganizing it. You're posted about your changes on the article's talk page today. Thanks -Fnlayson (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

 * Thanks so much! Have a Merry Christmas and Holidays. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
 Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Have a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! -Fnlayson (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
 We wish you a Merry Christmas, We wish you a Merry Christmas, We wish you a Merry Christmas, And a Happy New Year! May your holidays be filled with peace and joy. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! BilCat (talk) 05:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

''Adapted from Xmas6. Spread the cheer by adding to their talk page.'' BilCat (talk) 05:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * , Thanks and Merry Christmas to you! -Fnlayson (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Fnlayson!


Happy New Year! Fnlayson, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 02:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 02:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * , Thanks so much! Happy New Year's to you as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * TY! :) — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 03:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Better source than Deadline?
I don't understand why you tagged Deadline Hollywood as better source needed. Deadline is an industry trade journal and among the more reliable sources available for film information. It would seem to be more than enough to confirm the title "Transformers: A New Generation." -- 109.78.198.42 (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The source article only makes a passing mention to the film title. Why are you posting this here and not using the article's talk page? -Fnlayson (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * IMDb lists this film title but with release in 2023. Most articles found in searches only mention the new Transformers film as a passing mention for example. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "The source article only makes a passing mention to the film title. " and if another reliable source like Variety or The Hollywood Reporter made even a passing remark about the title of a film I'd expect they too would have done their fact checking and I would not see any need for a better source.
 * "Why are you posting this here and not using the article's talk page?" because it not about the article it is about your specific choice to apply the tag to a source I thought was very reliable. WP:RSPDEADLINE -- 109.78.198.42 (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The searches I did only found the Deadline article with a passing mention and several poor quality sources. You can add one of those other sources and remove the tag if you want. This entire discussion here is related to the article content imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand your basis for rejecting a very reliable source, that concerns me much more that the specific content of the article. I have read the Deadline article carefully and see no reason to even suspect that the reliable source is incorrect or dubious let alone suggest that a better source is needed. It is new information so it might be a while before other reliable sources also report the film title, what the lesser sources do seems irrelevant. I am not concerned about that article specifically, I can easily wait until other reliable sources eventually report it or the title gets used officially, but it is your rejection of a reliable source that concerns me, because making changes based on reliable sources is one of solid foundations of this entire project. Perhaps your intent was to wait for more sources, or to ask more than one source (but templates don't exist for that) and I'm simply misunderstanding how you used the better source tag. I try to use the parameter  if I am not sure a tag is specific enough to make my intentions clear. -- 109.78.205.85 (talk) 13:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I wrote the above comment before I saw your changes to the tag which made your intentions clearer. The Transformers film articles attract so many bad and low quality edits that I can understand your skepticism in general, but a reference to even one trade journal mentioning the title should have been enough. A reliable source is a reliable source. -- 109.78.205.85 (talk) 13:26, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Buck Rogers in the 25th Century planets
Hello, multiple episodes of Buck Rogers in the 25th Century take place on fictional planets, with some of the featured planets including Aldebaran II, Vistula, Xantia, Mycos, Katar, Pendar, Philoctetes, and Arcadis, as detailed on the episode list. Earth is not the only planet to be featured in the series. So could I reinsert the TV shows set on fictional planets category? The Editor 155 (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The series is primarily set on and around Earth, but that's a fair point. Try to provide a more meaningful edit summary with your edits in the future. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for reinstating the category.The Editor 155 (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Vague heading (Air Force One on 2/22/23)
Hi, I'm Hulk. It's always nice to meet a worthy opponent, who explains his or her reversions. Sorry if mine rubbed you the wrong way, I'm also inedible, it just happens. Anyway, "In pop culture" does explain more than "Features" would about what's currently in the section, no question. But do you think we still need that enormous chunk of nagging invisible text? Less importantly, do you want to help standardize Enola Gay with its own pop section? No rush on either question, just something to think about, maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * From the articles I mostly work on, Features, implies Design features. WP:Aircraft has a layout guide that calls such a section "Notable appearances in media" to emphasize the notable aspect. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Iron Maiden's site security
Hi. I would like to thank you for your help in editing the Iron Maiden band’s Wikipedia page. In recent days there has been an act of vandalism and deletion of data without any discussion or reflection. This was done by an unregistered user, which has happened many times in the past. Since I don't have the proper permissions (I'm not an administrator) and I don't know many tools available on the Wiki, I need help in protecting the Band’s site from such incidents. Can the page be secured in a similar way as in the case of other thematic pages? I think it would be worth doing to prevent similar situations from happening again in the future. If you can, help solve this problem. Once again - many thanks! RALFFPL (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey, you're very welcome. The Iron Maiden article could get semi-protection to prevent IP users from editing, if it is frequently vandalized by IPers. You can ask on the article's talk page to get more input and support if needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thx very much. I'll supervise the problem anyway. RALFFPL (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. This semi-protection to prevent IP users from editing and make things a lot easier. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry but I must inform you someone once again vandalised Iron Maiden site changing the data about current albums sales figure without sharing any sources. Even worse is the fact this change wasn't noticed in the article's history at all. No traces at all. It's malicious activity from someone who know a lot about to "run and hide" on the Net. Could we do something with that?
 * Thx for Your patience! RALFFPL (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I missed that edit from early morning today. A bunch of bot or script type changes make it difficult to check all the edit changes. I warned the user about making unsourced changes like that. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again - Thank You Very Much! RALFFPL (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

More Vandalism ...
Hi. This IPer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/80.168.88.247) use to vandalise Iron Maiden site many times especially in the last days. RALFFPL (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Just a note regarding the Concorde edit you reverted
Regarding that IP editor who is changing the verb tense in the first sentence of Concorde, take note that the IP editor is edit-warring—has now made that change three times today. I'm not going to be at my PC for a while (it's lunchtime), but I will report the IP if it continues this afternoon unless you or someone else beats me to it. 1995hoo (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Yea, I saw your warning on the user's talk page about this earlier. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Aircraft in media (use Talk:Aircraft in fiction instead)
Hi I just wanted to say that the Cessna 206 has appeared in love is in the air so why doesn’t have a part about it Cessna 402c (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * If you want to add [that] you need to find a reliable source that supports a notable type appearance in a work of fiction. In the future, please use the article's talk page for article related issues. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
 Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Have a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you and yours. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Came here to say the same thing to you. Have a Merry CHRISTmas. BilCat (talk) 03:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks BilCat! Back at you. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 03:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin edit
Hi! I saw your reversion of my edits to the Lockheed Martin page and your reasoning. And I'd like to talk it over before making any further edits. While it may be true that arms, defense are both related to the military, there are a couple reasons why I consider the link inappropriate and misplaced. First, those are TWO SEPARATE things in a list, among several other items. Linking them to a single page immediately strikes people as odd, at least it did for me. Second, I don't find your reasoning very convincing because every single item in that list is military-related. Arms and defense are. Sure, but so are aerospace and security, and tons of other things mentioned in that article. Heck, 80% of the article is probably about military but it'd raise a lot of eyebrows if we linked them all to military wouldn't it? Third, and this sums up the two issues already mentioned, arms and defense should be linked to their specific pages because lumping them together and point them to military just feels lazy and out of place. Pomodecon (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * OK, but it is not that important to me discuss this much. If you find a better article(s) to cover arms and/or defense, you are welcome to change it. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Boeing discussion
I'm staying out of the discussion at Talk:Boeing‎. It appears that any replies I might make there will not improve the situation. And the other editors are covering things well enough there already, imo. Thanks -Fnlayson (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems Chrisdevelop will only engage in constructive (or at the very least, less disruptive) discussion with you and a third party that is not Rosbif73 or Steelpillow. However you want to proceed, it's your call. -  ZLEA  T \ C 23:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

B-1 (manufacturer in Infobox)
After doing a little more research, I see that you are correct that Boeing acquired the B-1 division from Rockwell International. The Air Force lists Boeing as the contractor for the B-1 (https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104500/b-1b-lancer/). But, at least to me, that is not obvious from the wikipedia page for the B-1. If someone (like me) follows the series of links for successor companies for Rockwell, they end up at RTX. Also, it is not clear from the Boeing page that Boeing is the current contractor for the B-1. I'm wondering if in the Infobox, for Manufacturer, it would be better to list: Original: Rockwell International Current contractor: Boeing I am going to publish that change. You clearly know more about this topic than I do. I'm trying to make the situation more clear to someone like myself without much background knowledge on this topic. If you disagree with that approach and revert it or take a different approach, I will acquiesce to your superior knowledge on this topic. Mikebrand (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It was overly simplified before. I did not recognize how much Rockwell was split up back then. Thanks &#45;Fnlayson (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

M1 Abrams to Romania, status?
Hello, the contract by which Romania bought 54 M1A2R Abrams SEPV3 tanks is for 1.7 billion dollars, but the American congress was notified with an initial value higher than 2.53 billion dollars. What amount will still be used for this contract? Silo34 (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I have not seen much news on this. This Defense News article and Breakingdefense.com list a possible $2.53 billion foreign military sale for tanks and other vehicles to Romania from November 2023 pending it clears US Congress. I am not finding any newer news on this one yet... &#45;Fnlayson (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Search on Defense Romania, their last article about the Abrams was in 14 February 2024. The purchase is only 1.7 billion dollars. The 2.53 billion contract is too big for 54 M1A2 Abrams Sepv3 and the 12 Abrams derivates.Even with the logistic support is too big for 2.53 billions. Search the contract on the European and Romanian news channels . You will find the exact price. Silo34 (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. The $2.53B number is probably the upper limit for the contract. &#45;Fnlayson (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "According to US law, the US Congress was notified of a higher initial value of approximately $2.5 billion. After approval by Congress, the governments of Romania and the United States will sign the LoA (Letter of Acceptance) contract, the purchase by the Romanian side to be made at the value estimated and approved by the Romanian Parliament." Glad to help, have a nice day. Silo34 (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Aviation articles rewording
Hi Fnlayson, I saw this edit and it got me thinking -- should we update this section to use the phrase "mishap" instead of "accident", as that's the generally accepted terminology for the DoD? Is that something that would be worth rolling out more broadly across other U.S. military aircraft articles? I think you're more familiar with recent trends with our military aviation articles than I am, so figured I'd check in case this was something that's already been discussed before (saw your note at top of this page about discussing on article talk, but IMO this is potentially broader than just one specific article). ⇒  SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello Swatjester, Combat losses are generally covered in the Operational history section of aircraft articles, while accidents are covered Accidents sections per WP:Air/PC. These are both losses but due to different reasons. I don't see a solid justification for putting these together. &#45;Fnlayson (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm just talking about renaming the section on Accidents to use the word "Mishaps" instead. No changes to what entries are listed under what section, no merging. The term "Mishap" is preferred in the DoD aviation community over "Accident"; see e.g. USAF Mishap Investigation Process]. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 21:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not up to just me. You would need to bring up to the WP:Air project to get consensus to change the project guidelines (WP:Air/PC). WP:Air covers all aircraft including commercial and military. &#45;Fnlayson (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, I am looking for feedback, not permission. "The section header can be changed to just 'Accidents' or just 'Incidents' if applicable to the contents." -- seems like WP:Air already allows for this conceptually, but I agree that's a better place to seek the input I'm looking for. Thanks. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

787 Dreamliner Edits Removed
Hello, I recently made an addition to the 787 page for an assignment in one of my PhD courses. I saw that you subsequently removed it. Would you recommend I make my own different wikipedia page for the mechanical analysis of the 787, or is there another part of the main 787 page where you think it would best fit. Zachtrdinich (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Your recent edits to the 787 article added mostly unsourced detail which was probably out of scope for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summaries information from reliable sources and does not do create new content. See also WP:RELIABLE and WP:NOR.  Regards, &#45;Fnlayson (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)