User talk:Marc Lacoste/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Proper Nouns
Proper nouns like September, Euros, Danish, and Italian, MUST always be capitalized.

WikiDon


 * Of course (what edits?). I'm sometimes careless, but it's better to add information without capitalisation than no information at all. --Marc Lacoste 14:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Grammar
It 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)


 * Don't be such a dick, use some tact. English isn't Marc's first language, but his usage is much better than my French (for example).  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * hahaha :) ChrisRuvolo is right, and to add further mediocrity, I must say that I haven't a top-notch keyboard. Iteats lettrs somtimes. (in wich edit is the mistake?) --Marc Lacoste 14:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Marc Lacoste/gallery
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 Fair use), 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 mousquetaires
Salut, 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)


 * mon niveau en anglais se ressent dès qu'on aborde des sujets non trivials :) Deux choses:


 * le tag de copyright est incorrect
 * vu la qualité faible des images originales, il pourrait être confortable d'utiliser celle-ci, une pour chacun, comme juste http://bmarcore.club.fr/tennis/Mousquet/cochet-car-1928.jpg pour Cochet --Marc Lacoste 23:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Sports Car Racing
Due 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)
 * This is an update to inform you that WikiProject Sports Car Racing has finally been launched. Please feel free to browse the project page, add anything you wish to offer, and help in getting the project off the ground.  The shortcut to the project page is WP:SCR. The359 02:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Broadband Internet access worldwide
Hi, You reverted Broadband Internet access worldwide. Can you give a reason for the revert please? Thanks. bobblewik 18:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Bobblewik, because an anonymous user deleted many paragraphs, 'latvia' to the end. Sorry, it have eaten out your edits becaus of the simultaneity. I let you make the necessary corrections. --Marc Lacoste 18:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Aha. Thanks for the explanation. I have replaced my edit. Regards. bobblewik 18:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thumb vs Borderless
Hi Marc, I still think borderless is better for infoboxes. I answered on the info box's discussion page as you suggested. -- Splette  Talk 16:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Carlos Ghosn Image
Hi 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 <>, 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)


 * Yeah, you're right. Feel free to remove the license template if you found it usurpated, or add a reference to the book in the article to justify the image, perhaps. --Marc Lacoste 10:43, 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)


 * Yes, you can see them in my flickr uploads, with a little explanation of the setup. --Marc Lacoste 19:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Image uploads
Hi. 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)


 * Hi Alison, as you noticed on my user page, "I specialized myself in uploading promotional material to be used under a fair use policy.". They were usable under a selectable template:promotional at their date of upload, template still in use at the time we speak, at my knowledge. I participate in Wikipedia Talk:Publicity photos if you want to explore this point further.
 * But threatening people without referring to a policy is impolite, and more so coming from an admin. Good evening. --Marc Lacoste 21:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please check out the first criterion of WP:FUC: if a free alternative for a copyrighted promotional image could easily be created, Wikipedia policy precludes fair use. Before you add fair use images of cars, for instance, check to see if free alternatives exist at commons or flickr. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you check the Publicity photos, which is a subset of FU? If your points are irrefutable (perhaps they are, I'm too small to judge), this would be changed. In the meantime - I shout it over my laptop writing that - can you please stop arguing with one person in particular who is of good faith, and thinks he obey the available template? thanks. --Marc Lacoste 21:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is basically why Publicity photos is an essay and Fair use criteria is policy. I'm sorry if it seems like people are pressing this issue too hard, you obviously have Wikipedia's best interests in mind when uploading these images. Please just consider when uploading a promotional image if a free alternative is available, or if some wikipedian can take a similar photograph for the article - in those cases, it is easier to refer to WP:RP. Thanks ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is always a free alternative possible of a product photo. So FU is always usurpated for promo images. This is my position on Wikipedia Talk:Publicity photos. So I would prefer either ban promo photos totally, or accept those as non-free images and live with that. But being in-between like that adds penibility when you have to justify yourself every five minutes, whereas nobody were against you during one year. --Marc Lacoste 22:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There are times when a free alternative cannot be created because no copies of the product exist or when the product is inaccessible to the public. In those cases fair use is our best friend. In other cases, I agree with you that there are sometimes gray areas, this is why it is important to always err on the side of caution, even if that means not using a copyrighted image. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with this position. But the present templates and essay isn't that much precise. I'll propose and addition. --Marc Lacoste 06:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Marc. We're also holding a replaceability discussion about another image you uploaded, Image:Nikkor lenses.jpg. --RobthTalk 22:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Camera timeline templates missing
I see you have been instrumental in creating a lot of templates. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Photography.--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)

Aircraft fuel economy
Hello, 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
 Thanks for uploading File:Airbus A350 prototype roll out.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 gearing
Thanks for tidying up the table of gear ranges etc. Murray Langton (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * glad you find it useful ! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Good work
Thanks for creating those new articles. Once you're finished with your initial work on each page, please add the new articles to 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)

Diamond Dart 450
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-8
Please 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)
 * You are close to WP:3RR. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:57, 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)
 * at my knowledge, I don't. can you point my edit? thanks --Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Here you removed reference to the 2016 Flight International Airliner Census and replaced it with 2015 information. Here you then removed the 2016 reference from the article completely.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, you're talking about flight's census. Because the most recent census available (same census -Flight august 2016 publication-, link provided) is "correct up to July 2015", not 2016, see "EXPLANATORY NOTES" p.5. The previous info was misled. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless Flight in paper and in pdf are different. You have a copy?
 * Arg! the pdf is the 2015 version! my bad! thanks for checking! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) The source you removed was to the print edition of Flight International, which is the 2016 survey, and explicitly states that the data is dated to July 2016. The online version that you were replacing it with is the 2015 Survey - i.e. a year out of date, and superseded by the 2016 survey. References do not need to be online to be used.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * They don't need to be online but if a verbatim is available and facilitates fact-checking, no need to not use them. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You appear to be in conflict again on the DC-8 page, you need to use the article talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Page move requests
Marc, I've answered your post on my talk page. Btw, Requested moves/Current discussions isn't the correct place to post a non-controversial technical request. That is at 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)


 * Thanks, and I'm glad to be with you editing WP's aircraft pages! I'll be more cautious next time. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead image changes
I 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)
 * Indeed because the current one is bad enough compared to the new one that I doesn't expect anyone to support it, so I thought if I changed it nobody would resent it, and it's always possible to revert it anyways. For the list of pictures, the point is to have a curated list instead of a general link to the hundreds of pages in commons, often uninteresting, to use to illustrate a particular point in the article, so I put this in the talk page. It is the point of the talk page, isn't it? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * No the talk page is for comments to improve the article not for dumping loads of images. Nothing wrong with you creating better pages in commons. MilborneOne (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
Your recent editing history at Cessna 208 Caravan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Ahunt (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Boeing 757 into Middle of the market. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). 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.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added template:copied to both talk pages, is it OK for you? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thats perfect. Keep in mind though for the future that while the template is optional, the edit summary is mandatory. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * it was summarised as moved to Middle of the market --Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The most important piece is missing: an attribution edit summary at the destination article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Diamond Dart 450 first flight.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Diamond Dart 450 first flight.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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. Safiel (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
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 articles
Thanks 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)
 * Can you teach by example on this article?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I can do but it may not be today. MilborneOne (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Boeing 797
Boeing 797 has now been created by a new user. Too early? - BilCat (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed it's just hudvar-hazy (logical) nickname. I'll propose a merge with MOM. Thanks for noticing! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

re:DABs
I 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 Never include external links, either as entries or in descriptions. Disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia articles, not the World-Wide Web. To note URLs that might be helpful in the future, include them on the talk page.. The entire idea behind a DAB is to disambiguate Wikipedia. Entries that are not on Wikipedia and not mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia should not be included on a DAB. If the magazine is indeed listed elsewhere, it should be a redlink followed by a wikilink to the article that discusses it. DABs should not have references as the content in the DAB should be covered in the linked article. Think of it as a navigation page. As far as placing the, the bottom appears to be the most widely accepted place and is generally where the template should go. I haven objections to the addition of the magazine provided it is discussed in another article (not a list) on Wikipedia and is appropriately Wikilinked to that. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  18:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * To help other to correct their edits, it's best to copy the specific, relevant policy (here : "Don't include references or external links, see WP:DDD"). Thanks for the explanation though.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a reasonable expectation that users (particularly experienced ones) will read the specific policy given. DDD outlines in 5 short, simple and direct explanations. I see you've amended the DAB yet again, turning it into an article. Can you please stop and ask on the talk and reach a consensus before removing it as a DAB? Thanks. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  09:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * but your edit summary wasn't specifying which one of the 5, so how could I corrected that? Sorry I mangled the { { dab } } in my edit, I replaced it.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Comac C919
Was 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)
 * I'm working on it--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Comac C919 archive links
I 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)
 * It's also odd, since (for example) current ref 40 has been "archived" yet the original URL is just fine. Perhaps you should delete the archiveurl for consistency. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I added the ref 40 "archive" (just a copy) since the original is behind a paywall.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm very sensitive over link rot, but they are already in archive.org, not lost, having a comment don't help. Perhaps one day archive.org will disappear as the alexandria library. I'm working hard on those articles to have easy to read references to facilitate verifiability, and having huge refs isn't helping.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well like I say, you're the only person to make a fuss over this, please see guidance at WP:LINKROT as well, you may be curating the article right now, but you may not be doing so in the future. My solution (and the one recommended by LINKROT) makes the need for you or anyone to go looking.  I urge you to reconsider. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Archive-urls are great when the original ref is dead, but what is the added value of polluting a live ref? The bot archiving a page does a great job, but you're just adding an url, not archiving pages yourself?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Archive URLs are helpful full stop. If a link goes dead, there is a chance that it may never be recovered, so the IABot gets archives of the pages and adds the archiveurl.  I don't understand why you would think that's a bad thing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * They aren't useful before the original url is dead. I don't understand why it would be better than putting the archive-url when it's dead while before that it adds noise. (I'm interested in understanding your POV. I'm sure we are both intelligent individuals, and are only restrained by the backfire effect).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as adding noise, and I see it as extremely convenient, particularly in articles with possibly hundreds of links, it saves the effort of going to archive.org and locating a suitably live archive. You are unique, in that you have twice reverted the addition of useful encyclopedic information because you perceive it inconveniences you personally.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not personal, avoiding noise is useful. It could be useful when the links will be dead, but not yet.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well it clearly is personal as not one other editor has reverted my edits, moreover dozens have thanked me. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 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)
 * No, that doesn't make any sense, because that's giving consideration to editors only, not our readers who would be glad to have linkrot-protected pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * not only the editor (which should also be considered), but also the reader, for each ref, passing from
 * [url article] publisher/author, date
 * to
 * [url article] publisher/author, date. [archive-url Archived] from the original on date.
 * The reader would be glad to have linkrot-protected urls when the original is rotten, before it gives nothing but noise (and with much slower loading times) .--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Load times are barely affected, the reader will be happier to learn that links of this nature are preserved, and not disappointed when he discovers dead links.  This way we're minimising the likelihood of dead links being exposed to our readers.  Not all editors check the status of all links on all articles every day to see if they've gone dead, after a:::: Load times on archive.org are very long, and a casual reader will click it almost everytime. Links aren't preserved by adding comments in a wikipedia ref template, they are preserved by the archive.org bot. If nobody notifies a dead link, the url will never be corrected. Don't underestimate the reader willingness to become a contributor, it's the strong point of wikipedia.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)ll. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I thought you meant load times of Wikipedia pages. In any case, this is belt and braces.  If you don't like it on your article, that's fine, but it's being rolled out across the encyclopedia via a bot, I'm manually updating all the items that appear on the mainpage.  Your article is and appears that it will remain to be the only one that has not been updated.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not my article. Rolling a bot across wikipedia without addressing remarks can be a source of frictions. I understood your will. You never tried to understand my concern.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I understood your concern, I just didn't agree with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You disagree lowering noise have any interest?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But it isn't noise to the reader, and it's of benefit should any of the billions of links go dead and you not be there to manually fix them up with an archive link.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There is noise for the reader : refs are longer and there is another link to confuse. If a link goes dead, the good thing to do is to retrieve the linked text, getting to archive.org is a worst case scenario. I would have nothing but praise for your bot if it was only updating refs when the link was 404, but before that it's presumptuous.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't expect our readers to trawl archive.org or any other historical records to find where a dead link has gone, you can't update billions of links a day which may have gone dead since you last looked. It's a huge stretch to think a "longer ref" means "noise" for the readers, you should credit them with a reasonable level of intelligence. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Noise is unnecessary reading and time to select a correct link or to wait loading times, nothing to do with their intelligence.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the objective benefits far outweigh your perceived cost. Don't be surprised to have to have this conversation many more times as many more of the articles you curate are treated similarly.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree there are benefits to provide archive-urls before they are needed. But if you continue to say "your perceived cost", you maintain that you don't understand noise is detrimental for the reader. Threatening a commentator isn't a good way for you to convince others of your goodwill.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to convince you of anything any longer. Your opinion does not outweigh the objective benefit.  As I said, don't be surprised to see this happening all over the articles you curate. You'll have plenty of opportunity to convince other editors of your analysis.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Your opinion" again. You're not even trying to understand.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you're reading my responses. As I sid above "I understood your concerns, I just didn't agree with it".  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You never acknowledged noise is a problem for the reader--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * More detailed references does not equal "noise". That is why I don't agree with you.  I've said that a couple of times. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not explicitly, thanks for clarifying you don't think details can be noise. Do you agree noise can be detrimental?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It depends what you mean by "noise" of course. I don't consider enhanced reference formats to be "noisy".  If you added a bunch of random characters, yes, that's noisy and not good. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * random is useless, superfluous is noisy--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's an unusual definition of "noise". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 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)
 * That doesn't talk about additional useful information being "noise". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am talking about excessive information obfuscating the original message.Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't, it's not excessive, it's saying different things, our readers can usually speak English and understand how to read these things. It's not "noise" at all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * when the link is live, it has no utility whatsoever until the link is down--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we're done here, we're going round in circles. I'm saying that it's better to be safe than sorry, you're suggesting that dead links only need to be addressed once they go dead, and there are billions of links over Wikipedia which could do this each and every day.  I'm not going to try to convince you of anything more in this regard, it's clearly a waste of time, you will see these archived links added across Wikipedia in due course, and even this article which you seem to be particularly custodial of, will be fixed again.  And you can have this same conversation with the bot or whoever else runs the legitimate and article-improving script over it.  Bon chance. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * there was any discussion over this bot? could you point me towards? note that in the french wikipedia, there is an automatic tiny [archive] with every new ref link, with instant archiving on wikiwix at the time of the link addition (without excessive "archived from the original on DD-MM-YYYY"), kinda neat. This would render this bot a bit useless.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't know, you can find that out for yourself I guess.  If you have a better solution, propose it, but your continual claims of "noise" and "excessive" text is now too much for me.  Take it up with someone else.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * so you've never talk about this bot with anyone?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's hosted by WMF, it's recommended for use. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And it's linked from the history page of around 5.402 million articles. If that helps.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Try to use the dead-url=y if the link is really dead or dead-url=n if not. This reorders the links listed in the cite to match. See documentation at  for details. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing styles
There 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)
 * And there isn't any requirements to keep a change when referenced info is deleted, even if useful additions are made. Just separate additions from deletions. But there is a requirement to stay WP:CIVIL--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please point out what referenced information was deleted. No need to ping me again. YSSYguy (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I thought "will be produced by a Cessna-AVIC joint venture in China" was refernced. my bad.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Cessna 208 Caravan. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. 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)


 * You reverted six times.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha OK, I though the first two were dismissed since another guy edited in between, resetting the counter. First time I ask for WP:3RR application, I don't master it.--Marc Lacoste (talk)

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)


 * i did provide a pr link, you're welcome to do the same--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Access Dates in Citations
Why 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)


 * Thanks for your scrutiny. As I checked the references, the access-date wouldn't be anymore August 2011/ December 2014/ March 2015/ June 2016 but the edit date (2 November 2016 in this case). But since the refs were already dated (press releases, Flightglobal, Aviation week and Aviation International News articles), the access-date is redundant when the ref is dated, my policy is to prefer the source date to the access-date. The access-date is useful for non dated refs, like a dynamic website, but not so for static refs. That being said, if you prefer you can re-check them and add your check date as the access-date. Help:Citation_Style_1 : not required for linked documents that do not change --Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

License tagging for File:LMS-9 rendering.png
Thanks 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 Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at ACROSS Project, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. David. moreno 72   11:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. 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. moreno 72    11:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * I urge you to apply the collaborate guideline : when you see a fellow editor trying to add referenced, pertinent information, help him to place it without breaking disamb pages. I don't edit those regularly so you're certainly better at that. Show me how, it's better than knocking my fingers. the encyclopedia is best improved through collaboration and consensus, not through combat and capitulation. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Marc, if you still think the Advanced Cockpit for Reduction Of Stress and Workload is worthy of an article, use a different form of the name or add something in parenthesis, such as "ACROSS (aviation)". --Finlayson (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of my Embraer Phenom 100 pic
Marc, 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)
 * Hello Adrian, last year I put some work to have the article well referenced and well illustrated. To pick good illustrations, I went through the 123 pics in commons to select those which depicted best its features : general configuration in the lead pic, passenger cabin giving an idea of its size and accommodation, below view showing the specific straight wing not shared with the larger, faster swept wing phenom 300 (and exposed retracted wheels), a symmetric front view on ramp showing its attitude on land and both engine mounting, and a cockpit view to give an idea of the avionics. "Relevant" isn't only "showing the article subject", it should also show features not present in other pictures, and nothing really new was added by yours. Coming up with an image description of a specific feature of the subject is a good test for relevance. Even if you really want a side view a bit from behind on ramp, I think there would be better 3/4 rear views, with the craft more distinct from the background, or if only side on ramp is the objective, the next one is even on a very simple background :


 * "High quality" isn't so much for the number of pixels, but for the quality of the depiction. For your picture, while there is certainly many pixels, the depiction isn't that great : the subject is a bit from behind, the background is busy with other aircraft emerging from the phenom silhouette. Simple images, with a clean background, are best for an encyclopedia. I don't find the lead pic is blurry though, and inflight is recommended. The 2d inflight pic res is low indeed, but it's the best pic I found of the straight wing, while this is similar and high res but not sharp and dull light. That said, if you really want your pic in the article I won't edit war over it. Regards, --Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your very detailed reply. I accept all you say and I will not reinsert the picture. Best Arpingstone (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work, and while I'm harsh on this subject, I do appreciate your pictures and contributions. Bye! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

ACROSS Project
Please stop adding irrelevant information to the ACROSS Project page. The page is about a Treelogic R&D Project, nothing to do with the Advanced Cockpit for Reduction Of Stress and Workload project. If you wish to create a page about the Advanced Cockpit for Reduction Of Stress and Workload project may I highly recommend that you create a draft and submit it to WP:AFC. If you are having trouble on deciding on a title, may I recommend that you read WP:ATDAB. Any further unwarranted edits to the ACROSS Project page will be referred to ANI as you have already received a number of warnings. Thank you David. moreno 72    11:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Raptor rocket engine
Hi 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)


 * Hello, thanks for explaining your revert, that's very civil. I saw there is a section 2.2 IAC 2016 proposed designs but I updated the 3.2 Comparison to other engine designs table, which isn't about the 2016 design but about comparing the raptor with others, and seemed outdated when I saw it : the table isn't labelled "Comparison to other engine designs in 2016", but seems for the _current_ design. It was already the 2016 3.5 MN design, not the previous 8.2 MN one, and became 1.9MN in 2017. Would you consider putting it back? Thanks --Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks much. Your response is even more civil! ... since it appears by my comment that I did not grok that you were updating the comparison table. So that part of my comment was unfounded in reality.  Very sorry about that.  I guess I misread things and did not take enough time to get it right.


 * Agree with you that the table should have the "main" or "current" or whatever Raptor in it; not the one that was their design a year ago, when they (apparently) didn't have enough self-funded money to build the much larger sapcecraft and then take the time or expend the money do a second scaling-up turn on the engine dev program to get to the 3x larger Raptor either.


 * Would love to have your help on that engine article to get the data right, and also to perhaps explicate a bit of goodness in prose in that section to more fully describe the "Raptor 2017" version they released a few specs on last week. ... and in particular the goodness of how the 8.2 MN design became the 3.5 MN design and, now, the 1.9 MN design. I would likely get the engine stuff sorted in the next few weeks, but my day job is killing me and I'm kinda full-up on the wiki-side just trying to get the new LV article sorted against the older LV design article, and all done in the context of the overall SpaceX mars architecture article. Cheers.  N2e (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Marc. I finally had the time to get over there and make an attempt at updating the article with your new numbers in a way that did not lose the info on the older designs (that are, now, not planned to be built) and also has correct citations for the new info.  See what you think.  N2e (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, that's nice. Why leaving the not to be built 2016 design?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Good question. It's arguable whether it is table-worthy there.  But, I think, pretty compelling that it is article-worthy somewhere in that article.
 * Why? Simply because it is such a notable major engine design, being developed for some period of time during 2015 to 2017, and has many sources in reliable secondary source media.  Moreover, Musk has been quite clear that he's going with the "smaller" BFR (rocket) because of economic drivers and he is on record as saying that even the larger ITS launch vehicle design from last year is not as large as he thinks later Mars vehicles will be.  Thus, it reasonably likely that this notable design from 2016 or so may come back and be developed later.  So, no reason to remove from the encyclopedia.  That's my thinking on it anyway.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I added a line of context on several of the other engines in that table that were designs that were never flown, and at least one other, never built. So I think that staged-combustion rocket engines are still so relatively rare, especially the full-flow staged combustion engines like Raptor, that even the designs probably warrant being in that table for comparison, when they were serious designs by capable enterprises and under development for some time; each with good sources.   YMMV. N2e (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Aircraft specs
Nice 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)


 * Thanks for your explanation but your change lost the speeds and the power is 280kW total, not 3×280kW, so I reverted but I'm sure it's possible to improve. I don't understand what is jumbled?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, but the engine parameters are for each engine not the total so enter the power of one engine and give the number of engines. You selected met but enterred speeds in knots, which causes the units to come out in the wrong sequence.--Petebutt (talk) 14:52, 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)
 * Hello, fr:ESTACA (established 1925) was attended by Igor Alexis Sikorsky (1901-1970) : Igor Sikorsky's cousin. Legitimate edit for a plausible error I guess.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI: Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Airbus A340
Hello 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.  Bruzer Fox  09:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, easy to fix.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Translation
Marc, could you look at the last entry on TFX and translate it to English? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Merci beaucoup! - BilCat (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Payload vs range diagrams on aircraft type articles
Hi Marc: I have started a discussion on this here. Please join the discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries
As 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,  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)
 * That's why I wrote both in my edit summary: "Undid revision 814393066 by MrBill3 (talk)" and "The PC-24 received EASA and FAA type certification on 7 December 2017 and is anticipated to enter service in January 2018", so MrBill3 was notified of the referenced edit: he seems interested on the subject.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) As I explained, it is about courtesy, to avoid other editors thinking there is conflict or disagreement, having to go through two diffs to find out that there is in fact none. Courtesy is just that: you don’t have to go by it. Ariadacapo (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understood you: should I have made 2 edits?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My request was simply that you don’t summarize an incremental improvement as a revert. Ariadacapo (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I could have done 2 edits, I do that sometimes when I change multiple things, but this one was small enough to be done in 1.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Greets. If you mention the reference in the edit summary and cite it in the article, that would be most helpful. Best. MrBill3 (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed I do that often but space is tight in edit summaries, there was already two sentences in it. I could have done that though. Cheers.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Piper Malibu and speed records
On 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)


 * I'm sorry but your question is too long to read entirely, so I'll try to guess. Wikipedia is not bad per se, if it displays something seemingly inaccurate with a ref, the ref seems inaccurate and have to be checked, not removed from wikipedia. Of course a piston PA-46 advertised cruise is 213 knots, so 0.633 Mach at FL250 seems wild, but jet streams could reach 275 mph, so maybe. That said, this kind of one-off speed records seems WP:TRIVIA to me, showing more exceptional conditions than aircraft capabilities. I smiled when I saw Henri Pescarolo's name, though, a Le Mans mainstay chasing GA records :) Wikipedia editors should not make first hand reporting though, too close to WP:OR. But having some discernment is important though, I was in a similar position for Talk:Airbus_A350_XWB, the template:dubious could be used also, as is Template:Importance inline. Cheers, --Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC) Also, please prefer knots for airspeeds, thanks.

Proposed deletion of BBAM


The article BBAM has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No notability shown - please provide sources to show WHY this company is significant"

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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ  15:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

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:

"Thanks for taking the time creating this page."

To reply, leave a comment on Babymissfortune's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Happy holidays! Baby miss fortune 15:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve DieselJet
Hi, 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.

Icewhiz (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Help needet for Pilatus PC-24
Dear, 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)
 * Hello, I separated claims and references. Keep in mind this "Number built" field is more for mature programs with hundreds produced, right know it isn't that interesting and keeping track is tedious.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For your interest: this IP is now blocked for block evasion of a sockpuppeteer. The Banner talk 16:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

T900 and T901 articles
Marc, 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)
 * I don't think I will create separate articles, I will continue to add info to the AATE and ATEC articles without drafts (I have not made any), but there isn't much more info than that for now, perhaps more when only 1 supplier will be selected. Feel free to split it when you find it appropriate though. Cheers! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Beluga XL
Marc, it still needs fixing. Best. Superp (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 10,000h is more than 8000 hours--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:07, 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 reports
Hi! 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 venture
In 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 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.,. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  10:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

French translation help
Marc, 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)
 * I don't have any source immediately available, but dauphin meaning crown prince is a very rare use outside historical stories (especially in a country where kings have their heads cut off), I can't think Aérospatiale meant anything else than the seagoing mammal, especially given the aircraft likeness. Cheers!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Dolphin seemed obvious to me to. You don't have to go to any extra effort to find a source. - BilCat (talk) 07:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Daher
Marc, 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 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)


 * I did not know but the 'nuclear island' is the nuclear part of a plant (reactor, building, auxiliaries...) as opposed to the conventional island (turbine, generator...), as redlinked in Nuclear island basemat. I put the larger link and added the french article refs.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of current production certified light aircraft


The article List of current production certified light aircraft has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Wikipedia is not an aircraft buying guide or comparison website"

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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Diamond DART 280 MTOW
Bonjour, 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)
 * je ne sais pas quelle est la bonne masse.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Dans ce cas, faites des recherches avant de faire des annulations sauvages ;-). Si on considère la masse du Robinson R44 qui est de 2500 lb, on peut supposer que c'est la conversion en kilo qui est fausse. Loran O (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Pas une annulation sauvage: le texte devenait en contradiction avec la ref. Il y a 2 solutions: soit supprimer le passage incohérent, soit trouver une source cohérente pour le MTOW, mais choisir celle qui nous semble correcte c'est du WP:OR--Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Garder une information et sa source dans un article WP alors qu'il est démontré qu'elle est fausse, c'est aussi du WP:OR... Loran O (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ben non, à ce moment là je n'étais pas informé de l'incohérence.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Merci de l'observation de l'incohérence, au fait !--Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * De rien. Et pour vous dire franchement, je ne m'en suis rendu compte qu'après votre première annulation. Loran O (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem appears to have been an error with the specs template - now fixedNigel Ish (talk) 09:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * More a flightglobal conversion mistake.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Je pense que cet article devrait mettre tout le monde d'accord. Loran O (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Une ref en anglais sur wikipedia en c'est mieux mais ça ira.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

More French help
Hi 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)
 * I shortened it but I'm not really knowledgeable in military aviation. On a side note, I had a nice and unexpected PDF flyaway complete with coloured smoke while I was surfing yesterday. Best good wave celebration ever! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Cool! And thanks for helping out. User:OJOM made a lot of messes that are still being cleaned up. - BilCat (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Gulfstream pic
Marc, 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)


 * Hi, I meant as in "blocking my addition of pics" not the administrative block. A side view for the G550 would be better without the distracting hangars, many are curated in commons:Gulfstream_G550, like the one added. But why replacing a longstanding picture? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Paris Air show
Can you explain why you deleted my submission about 1967 Documentary Film? Quickscan1 22:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it didn't support any article material. There is often an =external links= section in articles to put this kind of things, but please read External links before, thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What would I have to provide to make it relevant? g. Quickscan1 21:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quickscan1 (talk • contribs)
 * If you have to ask, it probably isn't.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Let L-410 Turbolet
Sorry. Brain perhaps in reverse. Mcewan (talk) 06:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * no worries, cheers!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:20, 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:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

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
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cessna Skycourier cabin.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Widebodies passenger capacity and range comparison.png
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)
 * Hello, the 9700nmi range given for the 900ulr is for an unspecified number of pax. SIA flies 161 seats, but its range isn't given. You can derive from the ACAPPL/range chart the -900 should be at this pax/range if not fuel limited as the ulr, but that would be way too much WP:OR. Bye, --Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I see - so I guess it's too early. Thanks for your info! --Rabenkind (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018
Bye 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.


 * Just by placing them in a template:refn, it's like hiding them under a carpet and it adds another layer, not proper Help:Citation merging. I separated each ref for each statement instead.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

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 button, it will help prevent future mistakes like this. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk)  08:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Easy to do. user:Anomiebot repairs them anyway.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Vertical (or partially vertical) citation templates
Hi 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)


 * Hello because of the added line breaks, your edit was not clear when seeing the diff. After removing them, the differences are obvious in the . There are no guidelines for citation templates formatting, but keeping the previous presentation allows easier comparisons in diffs. If you find the text too dense, there are multiple possibilities:
 * * use the Wikitext editor syntax highlighting with the marker button Codemirror-icon.png, once highlighted, it's way easier to see the text separate from the refs
 * * install the References segregator tool and click the "Segregate refs for editing" button.
 * * if needed, named refs can be moved in a List-defined reference in the /refs/ section.
 * Every one has its quirks, but the best thing is often too leave them as they are! Cheers.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC) [I'm not related, it's a common name in SW France :)]
 * Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful reply. I will try your suggestions. I think I prefer it to singular they as a gender-neutral personal pronoun. (I detest singular they.)—Finell 22:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Madavor Media. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. PlotHelpful (talk) 09:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I did not removed the speedy del notice, only the /promotion/ ground: the article is describing a company, not promoting it in any way. I did contest the speedy del for the other notability ground, an argument could be had for that.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You still removed the G11, which in a nutshell means you removed a speedy delete tag. If you feel your page shouldn't be deleted please contest deletion on talk page of Madavor Media. PlotHelpful (talk) 09:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I've done it, but honestly, in which way is it promotional?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Madavor Media moved to draftspace
An 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 " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Hitro talk 10:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Cheers!!!!
Hey Happy New Year fellow editor & Thanks for the image support *Cessna 408 - *Kawasaki KH-4. I think we got the same "vision" in mind, and it has nothing to do with fooling the reader, but helping them understand the subject matter better - Cheer FOX 52 (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

A380 fuel capacity conversions
Marc, 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)
 * then the best thing to do is maybe to add non-breaking spaces ? A future edit may output the result differently (I saw it before in /specs/ sections), so I avoid the template when both are stated by the source. Cheers, --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note there is also a val template.

Nomination of Elroy Air for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elroy Air is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at 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.
 * We aren't fighting, we are discussing! Our conversation is still more about aircraft than about me, so it would be better if it is moved there, if you agree.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

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
 * What is wrong?
 * not wrong then, it is still a light aircraft, "experimental" or "prototype" could be added.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

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 we can study what's missing.
 * refs are Paur, Jason. "Chip Yates Sets 5 New Electric Plane World Records in 4 Weeks". WIRED. and Davies, Alex. "This Record-Breaking Electric Plane Stomps a Gas-Powered Cessna". WIRED.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

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?
 * good enough quality because refs are not announcements but reports from secondary WP:RS: Aviation Week and Flightglobal. A Pipistrel announcement would be a WP:Primary source.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

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.
 * I read about aircraft design since I'm a kid and I studied it at school, so I realise it pretty well. So the point here is not the number of seats, but the aircraft size. Was the 2-seater the largest electric aircraft at the time? Or the 4-seater? That would be of encyclopedic relevance. But be aware of weasel words: what if there was a 3-seater before your 2-seater? or a 5-seat before your 4-seat?.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

"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!
 * OK, but please be helpful by staying concise and bring good material.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

"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 discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cessna SkyCourier model, EBACE 2018, Le Grand-Saconnex.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ron h jones (Talk) 23:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Cessna 408 SkyCourier model.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cessna 408 SkyCourier model.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ron h jones (Talk) 23:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Boeing 747-400
Hi Marc, just want to know why you removed picture of ? Regards --Olga Ernst (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, as noted in the edit summary "removed ext. cockpit pic, unchanged, added new winglet pic": this was in the ===Design effort=== section, about the -400 changes to earlier variants: the main changes are #the new glass cockpit, already illustrated with an interior flight deck picture, #the new winglets, not illustrated prior to the edit, and #the updated engines, but with similar nacelles than previously (unlike the -8 with chevrons). Your external picture of the aircraft nose did not illustrate the facing text, and I thought it was more apt to illustrate the new winglet instead. Your picture is nice, but it was not about the new cockpit. Maybe it could illustrate a part about the aircraft nose, jetways or the stretched upper deck? Cheers, --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Marc for answering ! I am always glad for explanations ... still learning ;-) !! Cheers --Olga Ernst (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

File:GE9X cutaway.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GE9X cutaway.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ariadacapo (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Maquette
Hi 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)


 * Hi, maquette is mock-up, but it can be scaled down (as it seems for this UDF). "Scale model" is best translated by "modèle réduit" but "modèle" alone is less used than "maquette". Here you can use both. Indeed it would be best cropped down. Cheers!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I appreciate it. - BilCat (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There is an article on Maquette. Who knew? - BilCat (talk) 20:40, 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. And, don't forget to sign your reply with.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

MainlyTwelve (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR
Please 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)
 * Hello, in WP:CITEVAR, the guideline Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style is for witching the citation style of the whole article, but in the same CITEVAR, there is Generally considered helpful [...] imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles (e.g., some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references): an improvement because it makes the citations easier to understand and edit and it was the case in Cessna 402: there was a mix n match of refs and harvard. What is not an improvement and is discouraged is switching the cite style of the whole article. In the case of the Cessna 402, the harvard refs were mostly used only once or for few pages, so they could fit in a single ref. The alternative is to switch the whole article to harvard refs.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The article was using short cites, but you decided to overrule that. As you are determined to edit war to force your preferences, it is clear that my contributions are unwelcome. I will unwatch the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks like you have a thing about changing citation style in aircraft articles, not in my opinion always an improvement. Perhaps we need to discuss this with a wider audience. MilborneOne (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe in Wikipedia talk:Citing sources?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You have to agree that using Template:Rp makes the whole article pretty ugly. MilborneOne (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * IMO, as ugly as harvard refs pointing to ref tags, but it's possible to have separate ref tags if needed.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I dislike Harvard refs even more, more scientific paper than encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 08:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Launch
You 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)


 * This should be better kept there then. As for the revert, I was not convinced it was improved, but if you feel strongly about it, revert again.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Sabrewing Rhaegal.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sabrewing Rhaegal.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. S Philbrick (Talk)  13:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your contribution to the groundings article. Shencypeter (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Article sources
Hello, I'll reply to [ Talk:Boeing 737 MAX groundings ], 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."

So i've added an entry to: [ Reliable_sources/Noticeboard ], in hope of getting some responses. The whitelist request has been sitting in a pond for almost 3 weeks: [ MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2019/06 ]

Just as interesting stuff: he also had a conference presentation recently (video, slides )

  Aron M🍁  (➕)   05:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * His blog does not deserve to be blacklisted, but it will still be a blog (and it does not look professional). Do not put too much energy in trying to change wikipedia, it's a huge mammoth to move. BTW, this discussion should be moved at Talk:Boeing 737 MAX groundings where it is appropriate, and please keep your propositions short, thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the looks... But wp did not look this professional either a few years ago. I don't exactly understand the move... you mean it's not off-topic, thus should go back?   Aron M🍁   (➕)   06:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * WP always looked bland. Being based on consensus, WP is reluctant to change: you're trying to pass a somewhat obscure source as a WP:RS: nobody will help, it is not useful enough.-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc Lacoste (talk • contribs)

Boeing 747 MAX groundings
Hi 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. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I must WARN you that your third edit did not differ enough to avoid 3RR. Please stay cool and talk this through, as you are now vulnerable to any report made on WP:ANI/3RR. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:ANI – Multiple repeated reverts that resulted in page protection, then continued on related page
There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding "Multiple repeated reverts". The thread is Marc Lacoste, Andrewgprout: multiple repeated reverts that resulted in page protection, then continued on related page. The discussion is about the topic Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System. — Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)    05:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

You are invited to further discuss your edits. — Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)    05:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

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🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    06:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Photo From Wikipedia Commons
So you changed the infobox photo a few days back, I thought you might enjoy seeing it picked up here:


 * https://simpleflying.com/boeing-737-max-parking-charges/ - "photo from Wikipedia Commons" Shencypeter (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Congrats to the original uploader, I just bumped it on top. I'm glad WM commons is becoming a credible illustration source for many.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Aron M🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    02:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

777X engine test issue
Hi Marc, I'm not sure I understand the logic in your revert : the anomaly was not detected on the 777X proto but on GE pre-delivery tests, not delivered then, in that it was your prior "mining" edit that added information about the engines being installed on the prototype. Is it your understanding that the engines on the 777X proto were first run on May 29, and that the compressor anomaly occurred on another engine being tested at GE? That would make sense and fit the source, but isn't at all clear in the current text. Before we get into an edit war, how would you feel about The GE9X engines installed on the 777X prototype were first run on May 29. However, a compressor anomaly occurred on another engine during pre-delivery tests, and the maiden flight previously planned for no earlier than June 26 will now be delayed while the engines are modified to a final certifiable configuration.? Rosbif73 (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * exactly, and done!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

A gentle suggestion
We 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:


 * "Reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant.... Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose."
 * "Do not revert an edit because that edit is unnecessary, i.e. the edit does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse."
 * "Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. The reason for this is that authors and others with past involvement in an article have a natural prejudice in favor of the status quo.... Wikipedia likes to encourage editing."
 * "Do not revert a large edit because much of it is bad and you do not have time to rewrite the whole thing. Instead, find even a little bit of the edit that is not objectionable and undo the rest."

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)


 * Thanks for your thoughts. You say I'm not seeking to start an argument, but 3,988 characters does not come without a reply.


 * In the 747-400 page, you didn't made an accurate change because you modified content which was correctly referenced, see WP:BURDEN. I went to the trouble to verifying the previous ref, and I used the revert as a way to alert you (with the page and a quote!). Your intitial edit was disruptive. Obviously it was done in good faith but WP:DOREVERT a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse. Now it is better as you added a ref (but just a wp:bare url), but it is still sub par as it is borderline WP:OR as it needs an explanation and a thorough search ("no 747-400ER with PW4062 engines exists", and for pax only) and may deserve a template:contradict-inline: it is true all six passengers 747-400ER came with GE engines, but they were offered with both. What matters in specs, what was offered or what was built? I do not thrive for accuracy in wikipedia, but for accurate references.
 * I was dissatisfied by the low wp:verifiability of the /specs/ section for civil aircraft, so I went ahead and revised many with updated, reliable, easily accessible references, so I know them well. Thus I can maintain those section and often revert them to the state I know is well referenced. I'm not wp:owning any article but as I know well the parts I referenced, I care about their maintenance. Maybe it's common within aviation in wikipedia, many other editors are doing the same. It doesn't prevent constructive collaboration. We use the revert as a way to notify others there was a problem. I may thank them when I'm reverted for a better article.


 * for the Boeing 767 article caption, I stated not in ref, no Boeing 747ASB in wikipedia: a Boeing 747ASB mention would be better suited in the Boeing 747 article than in the 767 article where it is much less relevant, and again WP:DOREVERT Whenever you believe that the author of an edit was simply misinformed, made a mistake, or did not think an edit through, go ahead and revert. I did understand the Boeing 747ASB concept, but it's not even in wikipedia. Go ahead and add a section in the relevant article. It's not suited in the 767 article though. Drawers at boeing are full of tentative concepts.
 * I often use the maintenance templates, mostly inline for more precision. I always assume good faith, and only discuss other editors' actions, I never accuse anyone personally. I do not revert unsourced contributions, only challenge their verifiability. Again, WP:BURDEN.
 * I'm myself still a newcomer and I'm sometimes bitten by others. But at the end, the quality of the encyclopedia is more important than the well being of its editors. I'm not paid, nothing forbids me to stop. I may be argumentative, but it's because I want the best. I'm taming myself nowadays. I regret that wikipedia is harsh. I don't know how to make it easier on people while thriving for quality. We have to welcome the newcomers and thrive for high standards.
 * Maybe the result of our discussion would be relevant in Wikipedia talk:Revert only when necessary?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to reply, and do so in the spirit of open discussion. I'm glad you took the time.


 * I agree that the quality of the encyclopedia is more important than anyone's feelings and pride of ownership. In that we are sympatico. I'm not arguing that something "forbids [you] to stop." I'm just saying that I think that you rely overmuch on WP:DOREVERT, while underplaying the spirit of WP:ROWN. I understood the appropriate challenge laid down by your revert: find a source. I did so. Other editors might see it as, "Your contributions are unwelcome. Go away." This would be an undesirable outcome for good-faith editing. That's all I'm asking you to consider. You say, "I may be argumentative, but it's because I want the best." I submit that this goal ("the best") does not require those means (being "argumentative"). One does not require the other, although aggressive responses to vandalism are appropriate. Just consider a balancing act, that's all I was suggesting. I wasn't sure you were even aware how often you revert things, which is why I tallied it. I know that I'm sometimes surprised by how many times I do a particular action.


 * I think you're stretching WP:OR a bit. A source from the airframer that has everything listed in a clear set of tables is not original research (especially since that same source is used every time we update production figures anyway). I'm aware of the need to avoid OR contributions, which has left some interesting findings of my own research on the floor, but I don't think that WP:OR should be read that broadly.


 * As to your question, "What matters in specs, what was offered or what was built?" I would submit that outcomes are more important. That which does not exist and never existed is not relevant for specifications. It's perfectly logical to reference in the article body: "The 747-400ER was offered with Pratt & Whitney PW4062 engines,(citing ACAPS here) but no airline ordered this option.(citing order summary here)" But the specifications should match what was, where possible, not what was conceived.


 * Again, thanks for the discussion. I don't know that our comments are particularly important enough to include on the policy's talk page. I think we're just two editors struggling to find the best ways to navigate two policies that are, like so many of WP's policies, clearly in tension. Cheers. Sacxpert (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Do328Neu
Dear, 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)
 * And well did you take up on the hint - cheers! A la bonne vôtre! Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your good spirit!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Airbus cost with inflation
Hi 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)


 * Hi John, I agree giving the USD inflation is not the most representative. The point is to illustrate it's not £2Bn like today's £2Bn but much more (£Bn in 2019 GBPs). I picked USDs as it is the benchmark money in aviation, and we don't have FRF or DM estimates. I'll change that to GBPs. And indeed, it could be precised it's Flight's estimate, not Airbus' numbers.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW the french wikipedia gives a 5.5Bn FRF dev. cost.

File:Gas turbine efficiency.png
Marc, what does the FL-360-660 means on this schematic file? Best regards! Oesjaar (talk) 07:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, it's the Tropopause between 36000 and 66000 ft where the temperature is constant an thus the speed of sound is constant, it's also the cruising altitude of most airliners. Cheers! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Merci! I have now completed translating Turboprop into Afrikaans. The beauty is that all the schematic drawings have Afrikaans captions. I think this is the first Afrikaans article to have achieved this. Regards! Oesjaar (talk) 08:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

February 2020
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Competition between Airbus and Boeing, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. ''It is not my job to make you understand. I stated why it was being done, and the ERROR that was caused. You are now being disruptive.'' Jerod Lycett (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It's a good thing you are always right and others are not. The condescending template is really helpful.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Why?
Do we need tranclusions here? - BilCat (talk) 07:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * for Cessna_Citation_family--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Canvassing
This canvassing is inappropriate. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

B737 revert
Marc, 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. E x nihil (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This edit. WP:SYNTHESIS advises Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Just explicitly state what do you find in each reference, do not combine them and let the reader find out how they are combined, thanks. The statement about the number flying in 2006 is correct and referenced.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC) This discussion should be moved in Talk:Boeing 737

A380 ultra
Sir 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)
 * Because it was an April fool's joke--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

WHOIS
Hi 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)
 * Seems OK for me, like google.com was registered September 15,1997:--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Marc!--EtaPravda (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Boeing CAV
The 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)


 * Nothing is deleted, I moved it in the relevant Talk:Boeing Cargo Air Vehicle--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Are you sure you don't have any other or better comment? Do you think you're right - always? Please try to understand at least what I wrote. --Leo067 (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You stated you deleted our discussion. This is not the case, as I only moved it. I certainly don't think I'm always right. Tell me what I should understand. It takes two people to transmit information, if I did not received it, maybe it's not only because of me.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Boeing NeXt and other things
Please 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)


 * You did broke the layout (left: broken layout, right: repaired): extra white spaces at the beginning of a line cause the wikimedia parser to interpret it as a code sample.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC) see also Avoid using preview button

Op-eds
Hi 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)
 * Why not?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Rochefort, France question
Hi Marc, I have a DAB question for you regarding Rochefort. It's used in SOCATA Horizon, 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)


 * Hi! There are only two Rochefort without any suffix : one average-sized city in Charentes, and one very small commune in Savoie. When nothing is specified, the only Rochefort should be the one in Charentes (where there is some aerospace industry, like Stelia from the top of my head). Cheers!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I figured you were the best person to ask. - BilCat (talk) 06:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Aviation accidents and incidents and non-English links
Hi! 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)
 * Page 2/251 of the PDF of the English report states: "If conflicts occur on the interpretation of this accident investigation report between the Korean version and English version, the Korean version takes priority over English version." - If the English reports say this, it is absolutely necessary for the article to link to the foreign language original report. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * If it's in the translated report, I'm not sure having a link to the korean report is necessary. People who read the english wikipedia can't read a korean report, if they could they would read the korean wikipedia instead. Anyway, I don't really care, feel free to add the korean report link. Cheers.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Photo cropping
Hi 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)


 * Hi Bill, it's easy to do with only a web browser : from the picture page, go to "view on commons" on top, and once in commons, click "⌗ CropTool" in the left. Select "Crop method: Lossless" whenever possible to avoid jpeg information losses. Beware of overwriting only when cropping empty space (eg the sky or picture frames), and to upload it as a new file is it is a substantial crop on a detail. I've done it in a limited manner for the original file, but fell free to recompose for what you wanted. Cheers!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

French punctuation issue
See Talk:Sud_Aviation. 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.68
Hi. 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)
 * I'm not sure what do you mean, anyway this discussion should be moved to talk:Partenavia P.68.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

About the template
Hello, 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)

ATR
Bonjour. 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)
 * Hello. Bon j'ai compris pourquoi ! ;) Merci pour votre vigilance. Ngagnebin (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Please follow MOSNUM guidance
Your proposal to use a unicode superscript ² instead of 2 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)


 * whoa, you must really love the  tags to call for admin help if we just have a conversation! Bye,--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Otto Celera 500L
Thank 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.png


A 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)


 * Ugh! That's a Twinkle notice, sorry. Since we now have a photo of the mockup, I've CSDed the image, but if you think we can justify tweaking it, go ahead. You probably saw the new leaked photo on FlightGlobal that is completely different than this image, so the old one probably obsolete anyway. Cheers. BilCat (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

ZeroAvia
Hi 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 size
Hello 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)


 * Check the refs.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:46, 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)


 * Here in Wikipedia. Planespotter is not a WP:RS.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:31, 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 discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Airbus A321XLR.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ariadacapo (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

AvWeek NMA articles
Hi 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)


 * Hi BilCat, they seem similar, if the non-paywalled version supports the same information, it could be swapped as you want. Cheers!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for the answer. I'll double-check what the non-paywalled version supports, and replace as needed. BilCat (talk) 08:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Help
Hi 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)


 * I don't edit airport articles and I don't want to take sides in an unknown debate. Explain yourself in talk:San Francisco International Airport.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay then. Thank you! :)) Apple 3002 (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

BBJ revert
OK, but why? Now we are back to two conflicting lists, one incomplete. What is your point? E x nihil (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * A single ref avoids WP:synthesis.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:54, 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)


 * As often, good references should tell.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC) (mybe this should be moved to aerion's talk page)

Aircraft era
Hello. You should check the other pages, because that's where those links came from. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Breeze Airways
Just 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 AéroNavale
Hi Marc, I have a French capitalization question for you: The French Wikipedia article is titled 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)


 * Hi, thanks for all your work! I had a 5mn search, I didn't find any definitive reference for this. I would go for Société de constructions aéronavales without the mixed case as they are only common names. The mixed case in the lead of the french wikipedia is here to explain the SCAN abbreviation, I guess. Cheers! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. BilCat (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Boeing 777X
Hello ! 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)


 * The Boeing 777X article does detail the 777-8 777-9 variants.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

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
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)


 * Per WP:BRD, once reverted, the user who wants to change the article should start the discussion, not edit warring.
 * Boeing itself states 414 in the (dated, and with a layout schematic) acap and 426 in its general-public, undated presentation website, with no Y/J split. Both are valid, but the acap is more complete as a source.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC) This should be moved to the relevant Talk:Boeing_777X.

Use of convert templates
Hi 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  escape character or the template:Val.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cessna 408 SkyCourier model.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Cessna 408 SkyCourier model.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note 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)


 * Thanks for the notification. Note this picture is not a promo pic which would lose its fair use claim when the aircraft is publicly presented, but a photo of a model with specific and circumvoluted rules.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC) Are any wikipedian regular attendees at Oshkosh?


 * My apologies, but you are right. I'm not sure if I can simply revert that, but you can contest it on that basis. I forgot about why the convoluted rules where there, but I remember now! BilCat (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and restored the image, and removed the DI tag. I don't think it's logged on a deletion page anywhere that I could find. BilCat (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

"Winterthur Gas & Diesel" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Winterthur Gas &. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 25 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jalen Folf  (talk)  00:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Files listed for discussion
Some of your images or media files have been listed for discussion. Please see Files for discussion/2021 October 26 if you are interested in preserving their usage. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Embraer turboprop concept.jpeg
 * File:Embraer 2021 turboprop concept.jpeg
 * <span id="File:Embraer Short Take Off Utility Transport (STOUT) concept.png listed for discussion">File:Embraer Short Take Off Utility Transport (STOUT) concept.png

Pratt & Whitney Canada PW900
Hi 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)


 * Hi, yup, sorry, I thought it was non existent, I'll add it back!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)


 * No worries. BilCat (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Image help
Hi 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)
 * Hi, I did not saw the deletion listing, anyway I precised the licensing template with Template:Non-free promotional, the most appropriate template for this kind of pictures apparently. Bye,--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks! BilCat (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Ways to improve Embraer Short Take Off Utility Transport
Hello, 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:

"This article needs more references to satisfy general notability."

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. Remember to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 09:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Citations from English magazine or newspaper articles
Hello 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)


 * Indeed, conversions and rounding errors are a problem. But how to be sure the original number is metric or imperial?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Depends on the original source, if it is Dassault or a non US company and the source is a US magazine it it possible different, then again, if it's a US company, some like John Deere, Caterpillar and the entire US auto industry are metric in design but the source could be from a US publication. US magazines and newspapers are always changing the metric to some rounded inch value. Many people in the USA don't realize many US companies have converted to metric, in the case of the US car industry it was around 1975. Avi8tor (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * You can't be sure, it's an assumption. Metric-based companies like Dassault or Airbus can use imperial units for marketing reasons, as imp. units are preferred in some fields, eg Aviation. US-based organization may use metric units for engineering but have external communication in the opposite, or vice-versa. When a source give both units, the only encyclopedic thing to do is to be faithful to the source, and not assume unit A or unit B is the source unit. See Verifiability.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Reverts
Hi 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)


 * Thanks. Happy holidays. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)