User talk:Mfb/Archive

collision-production mode
That is the official status of LHC now. http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2015/06/lhc-experiments-back-business-record-energy Thought, it would be okay to mention it at that spot over at LHC. Though, it is not that important. (I think i added a ref for it too) prokaryotes (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That phrase was used for April where no (relevant) collisions occured. I'm fine with using it for now, as we now have collisions. --mfb (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

EM Drive
Hi mfb, You haven't been following this very closely have you? You ask Then where would the momentum of the EM wave come from, if not from the apparatus initially? Answer F=2P/c... Google it. Ask NASA and the other five counties that are studying the EM Drive. If you question the math, post it on the talk page or Reference desk/Mathematics but don't revert unless you have reason Sutor, ne ultra crepidam. So don't take offense that I am reverting your edits. --Aspro (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If the satellite is able to accelerate by purely internal mechanisms, this violates conservation of momentum. The details of where in the satellite the momentum is do not matter. Everyone agrees that it violates conservation of momentum unless there is some exhaust in some way. --mfb (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * ?--Aspro (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Which part is unclear? --mfb (talk) 11:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Muonium
I don't understand the reason for your change of 16 September. It is the case that uncertainty related to the structure of the proton limits the precision of calculations of the energy levels of hydrogen. If the original statement was unclear, I would be happy to change it, rather than undo your change. — Fcy (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The old version suggests that the energy levels of muonium could be calculated more precisely than the energy levels of regular hydrogen. That is not true. The largest source of uncertainty in both cases is the proton size and structure - this uncertainy is much more important for muonium. Muonium is used to measure the proton radius for this reason. --mfb (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're thinking of muonic hydrogen, in which the electron of hydrogen is replaced by a negative muon, rather than muonium, in which the proton is replaced by a positive muon. —Fcy (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops. Reverted my edit, thanks. --mfb (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Dimensionless Constants
Please read the talk page. We are having a disagreement (deletion of Jim Johnson reference)and I would like your opinion.Thanks Jim Johnson2602:304:B10B:A640:40A9:7E78:F78E:8DA2 (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC) I mean Dimensional Physical Constants. Sorry 2602:304:B10B:A640:40A9:7E78:F78E:8DA2 (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm watching the article and discussion there. --mfb (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Mfb, I think it is unfortunate that the reference to my article on constants of nature, Discovering Nature's Hidden Relationships, an Unattainable Goal? Physics International 6 (1): DOI: 10.3844/pisp.2015.3.10. http://thescipub.com/PDF/pisp.2015.3.10.pdf is arbitrarily ruled out. Do you think it is relevant? Isambard thinks you are voting to delete it. Also, the continued conversation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Deletion_of_reference_on_laws_of_nature_and_fine-tuning_from_journal_submitted_by_Jim_Johnson Thanks, Jim Johnson  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is relevant, and I said this on the discussion page already. Please keep the discussion there. --mfb (talk) 10:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

RF resonant cavity thruster Hypothesis
Hi, please have a look at Verifiability. Your own web page is not a reliable source. And while that alone is sufficient to make your content not acceptable: It is also nonsense what you try to add. This is not the first place where someone told you that - maybe consider as option that everyone else is right and you are wrong? --mfb (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, please read the text of that article, it's a 'controversial proposed type of electromagnetic thruster', and the theories written in section 5 are 'Hypothesis', of which most likely each is wrong. So what's the difference to just another explanation of which i think is the most classical and only explanation without magic of all the other Hypothesis written? It's a fact that my theory _is_ another theory, at least it's my theory, and as long as noone can proove it's wrong it's a valid theory, so why do you think it wouldn't fit in here? 93.118.20.216 (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, wasn't sure if you read on my IP-based talk-page, so i copied that content to here hoping to get a response ;) 93.118.20.216 (talk) 08:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The most likely explanation (by a huge margin) are measurement errors in those experiments that claim to see a thrust, but that is not the point. Send your text to a peer-reviewed journal, if it passes peer review there, and others pick it up to write about it, then we can include it here. That is the difference between what you added and what is there already. Wikipedia does not judge the quality of hypotheses, it relies on the peer-review process of journals to judge the quality and on the judgement of newspapers and similar instances to judge the notability.
 * Your explanation would require (a) the electromagnetic wave to be outside the cavity and (b) charged objects outside. Both are not present. If they would, the device would just be an ion thruster. --mfb (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for the explanation. This explanation does not need charged particles outside, that's the new and interesting thing in this specific solution, but anyway as it's not peer-reviewed an i see no chance how i could achieve this i'm not going to post it again. thanks anyway 93.118.20.216 (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

HELP: Associate article GRB 160625B with item Q33520039?
Thank you *very much* for your recent help with my newly created article "GRB 160625B" - Help, if possible, (I'm a first time user re WikiData) => How do I associate article " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRB_160625B " with Item " https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q33520039 "? - TIA - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * On Wikidata, click on "edit" in the Wikipedia section. "wiki"="en", "page"="GRB 160625B" (the title here). Then click on "save" - done. --mfb (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply - excellent - all now seems *entirely* ok - esp after an article "purge" - thanks again for your help with this - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

KIC 8462852: Difference between revisions
Hello.

If I had found this before I made the change I would have talked to someone about it.

I still maintain that a Flux is a rate per unit area. This is discussed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux Flux as flow rate per unit area. Look at Transport fluxes in the above article they are all Some unit m^-2

The sensor measures photons. They arrive at a certain rate and the sensor has an area. Thus photons m^-2 s^-1. The sensor can possibly detect single photons and has a collection area if this is what you want to say please do so but do not call it flux.

The issue is calling it a Flux. No, I have no alternative word.

Peter Mason


 * If you don't like the word flux, then why did you change something else? Flux is a very general concept and doesn't need to be "per time". See the electric or magnetic flux, for example. --mfb (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

 * Thanks for the invitation. I didn't work much with new articles here so far, I'm not sure if I am the right person to ask here. --mfb (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:CERN
Sorry for having been a bit quick, Mfb.

My intention was to create a new sub-category to the CERN-category: "Computing at CERN" and have these pages tagged with this category. --Bibliophilen


 * The software edits were fine, but things like "touchscreen"? I created Category:CERN software, "computing at CERN" would work as well, feel free to move it if you want. --mfb (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 in science
Hey. Since we cannot seem to come to agreement on our dispute, why don't we file it under Wikipedia:Third opinion? --110.93.240.133 (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I listed our disagreement under it. --110.93.240.133 (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Update @ Talk:2017_in_science --110.93.240.133 (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

2018 in spaceflight
Hello! You have made changes in Orbital launch statistics section by changing the status for the launch of Zuma using FC9, with a remark of "1 launch had an unclear outcome". Please note that the outcome is not unclear: it is pretty clear since a US official has confirmed to ABC news that Zuma "failed to remain in orbit". I understand your rationale that "we don't know if Falcon 9 failed in any way", and if the information we have so far is correct, it is likely the launch adaptor that failed to separate Zuma from the second stage. However, even if the adapter is not provided by SpaceX, the mission still failed--it doesn't matter who supplied the part, it is an intrinsic part of the launch vehicle. We can't blame an (hypothetical) imported O-ring to claim that it is a not problem for NASA that the Challenger exploded. It's still a failure for Challenger, a failure for NASA. I would like to point out a similar case of launch failure to you, which I have mentioned in the talk page: india's attempted launch of its IRNSS-1H navigation satellite on Aug 31 last year by ISRO--"The satellite got separated internally, but the heat shield did not open as expected, causing the satellite to be stuck inside the upper stage of the rocket" and subsequently brought back to earth. Note it's deemed a "Launch Failure". And this failure has been counted in every corresponding statistics towards India. I would really appropriate if we can discuss this on the talk page so other readers can contribute to the discussion. Regards, Showmebeef (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Failed to remain in orbit" doesn't mean the launch was unsuccessful. It might have failed after launch. If we know for sure the payload adapter was the problem, I'm fine with calling the launch a failure, but currently we do not know this. I replied on the talk page there. --mfb (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, you are half right about expendable BFR spec
I found the part on Elon's BFR talk where a slide briefly appears with expendable figures for the SpaceX fleet. But, Elon does not address that slide *at all*, he just stammers then quickly moves on to describing why reusability is everything and trowing away rockets is "crazy"

So, that slide with expendable figure of 250 tons is a mystery. That slide *does not* appear in the official SpaceX transcript or the SpaceX MAKING LIFE MULTIPLANETARY Progress Report. I believe he made a mistake including that slide, and it was meant to compare SpaceX fleet with other "throw away" rockets on a level playing field, so to speak. On the stage, he thought on his feet, then quickly ignored that slide and moved on.

Is there a compromise we can make? A note in the text about the mystery slide? A LOT of anti-SpaceX, Elon Musk haters are using the expendable figure to promote CIA orbital weapon conspiracy theories.

Sierra Echo KTM (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC) 


 * It is a (planned) capability, and if someone is willing to pay the much larger price for it (still cheaper than SLS), I'm sure SpaceX will be happy to do that. Even if it never flies expendable (something we don't know today) it is something the rocket is supposed to be able to do, and for size comparisons that number is useful. --mfb (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Standard for orbits in the Timeline of spaceflight
The Timeline of spaceflight articles does indeed have a unified standard for labeling the orbits like you stated. I would like to note however that there seems to be several exceptions for planetary probes, as in the 2020 article Mars 2020, Mars Hope, MGRSO are each labeled heliocentric instead of areocentric, EQUULEUS is labeled high Earth although it is headed for Earth-Moon. Even in the 2020s article, JUICE and Europa Clipper are labeled heliocentric when they should be zenocentric. Curiosity is labeled heliocentric in its section. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should change these probes as well (although Spirit, Opportunity and MSL have heliocentric as well - there is some pattern). The target orbit is usually the interesting part of the mission, not the division which part of it is done by the launch vehicle and which part by the satellite. --mfb (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Although I mostly agree, I haven't reached a conclusion on how to treat landers. While some, like Schiaparelli are labeled as Martian Surface, others use the final orbit that will be used prior to its landing (like trans-lunar injection). I went ahead and corrected the orbits of the aforementioned orbiters. Regards, Hms1103 (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Unified Field Theory
Hello MFB,

Noticed you revised or removed the contents as the following: (cur | prev) 19:40, 1 April 2018‎ Mfb (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,005 bytes) (-833)‎. . (removed unsourced nonsense) (undo) Please be aware of that there are lots of the references about the Multi-Worlds Interpretation, shown as the following link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

We will enhance the contents further significantly. Please be mindful and watch for the groundbreakings over the years that has resolutions to UFT concisely ...

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.113.204.1 (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Please make sure you understand what Wikipedia is before contributing. Or, especially, What Wikipedia is not. This is not a place for private opinions or original research. We record established knowledge, not "I thought of something new". --mfb (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Please don't judge the established knowledge based on what you thought. For over one-hundred years in this area, the only fact is that you were born with those numerous hypothesis and get used to some of them as being "established". The more your way of the "established", the hard to reach the truth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.113.204.1 (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Impossible vs impractical
You are right, thanks for fixing:) Heptor (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Gravitational Constant talk page
Mfb, The response you have deleted was not addressed to you because you have quitted the discussion. You have insulted me with your “Stop it”. I’m not your slave. Take a look at your actions: you have placed with enthusiasm your own calculations right under mine and I did not scream “Stop it” because calculations help to discuss the article. Korablino (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * You are violating the rules of Wikipedia, and you did so with every comment on that talk page. Nothing you wrote there has any chance to get added to the article. So what exactly do you try to achieve? Getting banned here? Because that's where you are heading towards if you continue to break the rules like that. --mfb (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

If I violated the rules - you did exactly the same plus insulted me. I was and continue to be polite. Nevertheless in general you are right about rule violations. So, go ahead with all your banning threats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korablino (talk • contribs) 23:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not a threat, and I cannot ban users anyway. The administrators can. It is a fact, not a threat. Telling you that you violated rules it not a rule violation, and unlike you I did not start discussing personal "theories" on talk pages. --mfb (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Neutrino stars
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201809.0441/v1

You should read it first and then to decide if it is a pseudoscience! Roumen :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.44.102.247 (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * After reading more than the abstract I'm sure it is pseudoscience. --mfb (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

You are mixing the form with the content :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.44.102.247 (talk) 05:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Your point taken re time zones at Parker Solar Probe
I saw your edit to my own addition to the article on Parker Solar Probe, and I want you to know that I see your point. I think I did it because so many of the news releases--presumably American (which includes NASA and Johns Hopkins)--were talking about the flyby happening on November 5; I thought it might be good to explain the seeming discrepancy. But you're right. No doubt, over the seven years of the mission, there will be other cases like that. Some things, the reader's just gotta work out for him or herself! Thanks! Uporządnicki (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We have this frequently in spaceflight articles. It is always a different day in a different place in the world (literally - time zones span more than 24h). We report UTC everywhere, local time for launches sometimes, and that's it. Adding a comment to every single time wouldn't make sense. --mfb (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Right. It struck me that most readers of the English language Wikipedia are probably in the United States or Canada.  But still, I was overthinking a non-problem. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

note re cat category: 2018 timelines by country
hi. I tried to do what you said, and created a new category, Category: 2018 timelines by country, for all individual country timeline articles for 2018. Now I am being told the cat could be deleted, because they feel it is a duplicate of the cat category:2018 by country!! could you please comment at the entry for this category, at categroies for deletion? thanks!! here is the link!!

Link to entry: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_19 --Sm8900 (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

electronic harassment and targeted individual phenomenon
Hi,

I noticed you reverted a change I made on the electronic harrassment wiki page. All of the information was sourced from the nytimes. Could you elaborate on why you reverted?PaulGosar (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Please discuss article-specific things on article talk pages. You removed "reportedly", you changed a referenced date (I can't access the book, however), you applied a (hand-waved) upper limit on a broad class of research to a subfield of it, to make it worse it was based on a very questionable source. Using the template cite journal is wrong for something that appeared on a preprint server only. The "other" fields on arXiv are known for questionable entries, and this one is in "other computer science" despite being not about computer science at all. The other paragraph you added has too many literal copies of the source and the source article doesn't have a high quality either. --mfb (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Surely. Thank you for your response and your efforts. I will implement the suggested changes.--PaulGosar (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: BEMER Therapy
Hello Mfb. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of BEMER Therapy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguous advertising. Thank you. &#x222F; WBG converse 16:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Now most of the article got deleted just from clean-up edits. --mfb (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Whilst it did not satisfy G11; you are free to take it to AfD. It's far away from my area of competency and I don't have any clue about whether it's notable or not. &#x222F; WBG converse 09:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

BFR
Hey Mfb, would you kindly take a look at the recent-most edits of Soumya-8974 on the BFR page? I've reverted some of this editor before, and I want to be welcoming. But am unsure on the recent three edits, and would like to just defer to someone else looking at it seriously. I wish this editor would leave comments that might help one figure out what they are trying to accomplish. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks fine for Super Heavy but not for Starship. --mfb (talk) 07:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Apology
Hey. I saw the message you had up on the Artemis program talk page before you removed it.

I want to apologize for my revert of your edit on the main article. I don't really know what I was thinking. I reverted my own revert a few minutes afterwards when I came to my senses, but I was heated at the time (for unrelated reasons), and wasn't really thinking. I now realize I shouldn't have reverted your edit to begin with.

Just wanted to explain what happened there and offer an apology for making some less-than-rational decisions. - Jadebenn (talk) 09:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --mfb (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

NASA Distinguished Service Medal
Thanks for this edit. I don't know how I missed Jack King; that was one of my earliest Wikipedia BLP articles, a decade ago. (Sadly, King is no longer LP.) TJRC (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I just added links for everyone in the editor then looked in the preview where there might be articles. Where the link is blue check if it is the right person. Doesn't find everyone (Foo C. Bar might have the article Foo Bar and no redirect from Foo C. Bar) but works quite well. --mfb (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Astronaut/Space flight participant
Hello!! I saw that you edited Hazza Al Mansouri as a "spaceflight participant" as "talk page". I found more information and already sent it to talk page about the definitions. I think that if we let him as just "spaceflight participant" we should make Marcos Pontes, Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor, Yi So-yeon that as well. Pontes case is weird, because he trained as a NASA astronaut but had his only Soyuz mission as a spaceflight participant (Soyuz TMA-8/Missão Centenário). Erick Soares3 (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * An interesting case. Let's discuss there. --mfb (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Interplanetary Transport System vs. ITS launch vehicle
Interplanetary Transport System"" and ITS launch vehicle

Your question over on the BFR Talk page is a good one: "It is weird that Interplanetary Transport System redirects to the Mars article, not to the article about the proposed Interplanetary Transport System. Maybe we can fix that at some point, but I don't see the relevance here now. Just for the record: I always understood the discussion to be about the rocket article. --mfb (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)"

I think it is because the scope of the I.T.S. article back in the day, back when Musk first described ITS in 2016, was the entire "system", of which the launch vehicles were only one part, albeit the part that got the majority of the prose. Musk emphasized four things in the talk. The Mars fuel plant, the novel in-space refueling, etc.

WHen SpaceX changed the LV name, it became an article for the Mars transportation architecture, and later renamed to waht it is now.

But yeah, definitely not worth making the current disucssion even more complicated at present. N2e (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Photon
Hi. In that case can you write what those studies were saying? --22merlin (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The one you added to "light" doesn't contribute to the topic. The one you added to "photon": I'm not sure if it is notable enough for that. "Coherent absorption of a photon by two distant atoms" or so. Note that this is a purely theoretical work. They didn't demonstrate it. They just showed it should be possible if some conditions can be met. --mfb (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Dowling-Neven law
Hard to call this obviously invented when IEEE and LSU have sources on it. Try AfD if it needs to go. Fabrictramp &#124;  talk to me  05:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Where? I didn't find any use of that name apart from Dowling himself. --mfb (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

possible article material
would you like to help add text to 2010s in science and technology? we have revised the article recently, so it is a bit easier to do so now. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not much activity on the talk page but I still think several of these entries should be removed. I'll add some points later. --mfb (talk) 09:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding simplifying the graphs. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Tercer (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Concerning my edit to Timeline of the Far Future
I do not believe it is a gambler's fallacy. A major asteroid impact is said to happen roughly once every 100 million years. It's been 66 million years since the Chicxulub impact, therefore by 34my into the future, 100my after the last, another major asteroid impact will likely have happened. To make it clearer that it can happen at any time, I could change it to 30-40 million years from now that another one will have probably impacted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.211.7 (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You are repeating the gambler's fallacy. "Roughly every 100 million years" is an average rate. It doesn't mean there is a cosmic asteroid schedule where they come with 100 million years plus/minus a few separation. Two impacts can come just 1 million years apart, or 300 million, or whatever. It's like estimating the time until you roll the next 6 if you roll once per year: It's 6 years as expectation value, when you rolled the previous one doesn't matter - it's 6 years even if you didn't roll a 6 for the last 20 rolls. --mfb (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

My earlier comment
Sorry, I didn't get back to you earlier, real life has gotten in the way. I wanted to apologize if I came off as a little too brusque on Talk:Dubai Creek Tower I understand that the situation is frustrating, and that your addition although unsourceable was probably correct. I also aggree that while brief interruptions to construction should not result in a status change, that anything over a year should ideally be reflected in the article. However, when all is said and done Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia which means that it reflects verifiability, not truth. As a related example, I have personally observed construction at a location where the sources have neither updated from proposed, nor has a newspaper seen fit to report on the start, so I had too leave the buildings status in the article as is, even though that leaves it out-of-date, just read my edit summary. So anyway, hopefully the experience was not to discouraging and we can collaborate in the future. I'm not particularly active, but if you need help with tables, templates, lua scripts, and anything else and are willing to wait a few weeks, please drop me a line on meta and I'll see what I can do. Have a good one.

 &#119980; &#120084;  20:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thirty Meter Telescope
OK well...I can see you have other disputes from the peace dove icon I created for DRN posted above where I volunteer. So....I will be sure and not attempt to mediate any content disputes you might have there in the future through that process. However, I am not trying to push a bias but I do feel it possible you might. If you wish to attempt to discuss this between us and maybe gather further community input, I am good with that but understand this is about your edit that removed wording in favor of other wording. Instead of reverting I edited out the weasel wording and then strengthened the claim with additional RS. But you have begun edit warring. Either one of us could be in violation of the 3 revert rule but I am reverting using Wikipedia guidelines and reliable sources. How would you like to proceed? 3RR discussion, reliable sources discussion, request for comment or Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? I am not against proceeding to a noticeboard of your choice but I am trying to stick to Wikipedia Guidelines. As long as you are we should be able to work together.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That DRN notice above was a single editor who couldn't accept that no one else was the same opinion (archived). I think I have made it very clear how I would like to proceed: Discuss on the talk page if we should change the article relative to the previous version. BRD. I started a section there. --mfb (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You do not seem to understand many of Wikipedia's guidelines, have a recent history of DRN for content disputes and have begun editing warring and making accusations I find kinda offensive, a little..if not racist, racial for no other reason than to accuse me of bias, yet your contributions show you have an extremely high bias towards science subjects. Could it be you lack the forethought to even see my own contributions to this article? I think so.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of the guidelines, thanks. Did you look at the DRN? It's silly to point it out again. If you want to make a story of me being disruptive, use me being blocked in the German Wikipedia. For two minutes, because an admin clicked on the wrong link, but apparently context doesn't matter. Oh look, you had four real blocks in the past, most for edit warring. I'm a scientist, many of my edits are in science articles, sure. I have nothing to do with the TMT, however, apart from general interest in the topic. --mfb (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My point is, I have used Wikipedia guidelines and added additional references to the already existing source. Block log? Please...you could use mine against me if you really wanted. That is not the point. Wikipedia encourages scientists and other experts to edit the project but neither my own support of one thing or another isn't relevant (I'm a Democrat but that doesn't mean I can't edit articles about Republicans or Democrats). The point is to edit without bias. Adding the word "Some" to that portion is adding doubt and reducing the references claim. I would also argue that it was analyzing the original source and coming to your own conclusion. Let's try to kove forward with some degree of understanding.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * How is it adding doubt? Doubt about what? By the way: "that some Native Hawaiians consider sacred" - usatoday.com --mfb (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow...been here since 2013 and doesn't understand Weasal Words like; "Some scientist say..." Which scientists? OK and then you also try and add content that is you own analysis of the source polling information to again justify some bias about Native Hawaiians finding Mauna Kea sacred. Houston..we have a problem.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, 48%/44% is as close as it gets within uncertainties of these polls. But we can put in the numbers, no problem. --mfb (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Please stop editing warring and adding weasal words intended as doubt. On this issue there is strict guidance. I have returned to the original wording of "Hawaiian culture" as the article states and removed two dangling references. Your intent is clearly to change Hawaiian or Hawaiian culture to just "some Hawaiians" has been challenged per guidelines and there exists no consensus for your changes.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's what the sources say. It's a well-sourced fact that some consider it sacred while some do not, writing otherwise is wrong. Phrased with "culture" it's better than before at least. Compromise proposal (yet another one from my side): We keep the culture as it is, change "to" to "in" (not a native speaker, but I'm quite sure it must be "in"), put the two sources back that you removed, and call it a day. I don't think it is a good solution because (as sourced) some Hawaiians think otherwise, but I think it's better than an ongoing edit war. --mfb (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll consider the lack of a reaction as no objection. --mfb (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Individual Falcon 9 boosters


A tag has been placed on Category:Individual Falcon 9 boosters requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please check the edit history or the talk page of categories first before nominating them for deletion. --mfb (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Quasi-political issue
Dear Mfb. You undid my edit to change a reference from Taiwan to ROC in Comparison of orbital launch systems. Your ostensible rationale for this is that the edit violated the policy on use of common name; however, the policy applies only to article titles. In that case, the article title itself is inaccurate (though I will not contest it at present) since the Taiwan article refers to the state entity officially named Republic of China, rather than to the physical island Taiwan. The usage of Taiwan versus ROC (even as a shorthand) obviously has political under and overtones; as a result, I think it's wiser to generally go with the entity's official name 'ROC' instead of 'Taiwan' when referring to the state until such time the state declares itself as Taiwan, otherwise this would be a violation of neutral viewpoint. Consequently, I'm likely to undo your revision. But I welcome your response prior to my action. Spotty&#39;s Friend (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You linked to Republic of China. We use Taiwan nearly everywhere, both in titles and articles, because Taiwan is easily understood while Republic of China frequently leads to confusion. This isn't about any political point of view, this is just about making life for readers easier. Taiwan won't get misunderstood. It is rare that we use the official long name of a country unless the article is about the political structure of that country. Similarly: We don't write Federal Republic of Germany, we write Germany. We don't write United Mexican States, we write Mexico. --mfb (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess this is a political issue after all. We use Germany rather the Federal Republic of Germany since there's no ambiguities and no political implications, but use of 'Taiwan' to refer to the state entity does have neutrality issues at this time regarding whether the island is part of China (use of 'ROC' would skirt this issue since the state itself uses the name.) It seems to me that we may have a common name versus neutral viewpoint clash of policies, and I for one opt for the latter. Spotty&#39;s Friend (talk) 03:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In addition, we're talking about Wikipedia, a hyperlinked set of pages, so that any possible confusion re name can be easily resolved simply by adding a link. Spotty&#39;s Friend (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a column that lists countries. We clearly do not say China there, we say "whatever is on the island of Taiwan", which is commonly called Taiwan. Listing Taiwan as country and listing ROC as country look identical to me. The former is just easier to understand without requiring the reader to follow every link on the page. --mfb (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, here's the political controversy: there may be a plurality on the island of Taiwan, which includes its current president, that would probably like to declare independence from China and call itself something like a 'Republic of Taiwan', while a large minority on the island would like to continue with the status quo, which is calling itself 'Republic of China, province of Taiwan'. The People's Republic also wants to continue the status quo of 'One China' with two state entities, one called 'ROC' on the island of Taiwan, and had threatened to invade if the island's current government declares itself an independent country called Taiwan and dropping 'China' from its name. To skirt this issue, organizations such as the International Olympic Committee calls the Taiwan state entity 'China, Taipai' instead of 'Taiwan'. In light of this background, using 'Taiwan' to refer to the state entity is not politically neutral and implies an endorsement of Taiwan independence. So it's better to use ROC instead Taiwan as a politically neutral term at the expense of incurring the unbearable burden of following an additional link. This may also mean that at some point we'd need to move the Taiwan page itself to the Republic of China' page, while redirecting the former to the latter (lest current events supercede that need.) Spotty&#39;s Friend (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert in China/Taiwan relations and I don't want to become one, but see above: All this doesn't really matter. Wikipedia isn't trying to make any political statement. We just use the commonly used name. If you think that name is ROC, then please suggest to move Taiwan. If that move gets consensus I'm happy to change all the articles to ROC. If there is consensus against, that means we should keep calling it Taiwan. The last move discussion was in 2014 and was opposed by everyone, referencing WP:COMMONNAME, that should give some indication how such a proposal would be received. --mfb (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I've read quite a bit (not all) of the archived page-move discussion and I'm resigned to the fact that the 'Taiwan' page itself, and its use of the common name to refer to the state entity, likely will not be changed on Wikipedia until real-life political situations change. However, the discussion also shows that no decision was made re its use on other pages, depending on the situation. There's also a suggestion in the archived discussion on using the term 'Taiwan, officially known as the ROC', as is used on the 'Taiwan' page itself, when the situation warrants. In light of this, I think this suggested use would be a possible compromise to accommodate both the common name and neutral POV policies, at the expense of a few extra words, on the Comparison of orbital launch systems page. So I would be making this edit. This message is a courtesy notice, Spotty&#39;s Friend (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a really awkward option, making the name much longer than other names. If you want to change this please seek larger support first. We use Taiwan in tons of spaceflight articles and we should keep the consistency. So maybe a discussion in the spaceflight portal at the very least? --mfb (talk) 07:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In my humble opinion, your above suggestions seem to be consistency and discussion overkill in view of the very small addition (4 words) that actually accommodate two distinct Wikipedia policies, and one that conforms to how the 'Taiwan' page's content refers to the state entity. It seems to me that we don't need to conform every instance of the national reference to some absolute minimal form, especially in view of the underlying political controversy. The addition of a few words avoid common misunderstandings and skirt any neutrality issues at the expense of minor wordiness. Since this is not a page-move request and it constitutes only a minor change of isolated links that enhances neutrality, it also seems a bit draconian to have to involve the entire community in a further long-winded discussion (and possible subsequent vote?) Cheers. Spotty&#39;s Friend (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The article Taiwan has to mention the official name, of course, just like Germany does, that doesn't mean we should add it to every article. And yes, this needs more discussion if you want to change something, because otherwise we get back and forth in hundreds of articles on a daily basis. If you think this is silly for just one or two words then stop changing it. But don't do what you do now. This is the worst approach. --mfb (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess you leave me no choice but to take this to a discussion on the spaceflight portal, despite the fact that I have bent over backwards to address every complaint that you previously raised with respect said change; I suppose there's no way for me to address your apparent personal policy that, in this instance, favors stasis due to past and current usage. Note that when I do get around to raising this issue in discussion, I'll be proposing to use 'Taiwan ROC' as an equivalent form to 'Taiwan' rather than a superior form, so that there's no need for anyone to go around hunting down and changing every instance of either form. I'd also like to note that your reference to my re-editing your edits as the 'worst approach' is interesting; I'd just like to remind you of the following lyric from some song: 'It takes two to make it right,'; here, I'd paraphrase that lyric by saying that it takes two to make it wrong (or the 'worst'.) For some reason, the word 'Unsinn' comes to mind. Still, I'd like to remain civil and courteous as I suspect that you're acting out of a (stubborn) good faith in this matter and so I'd just wish you good day. I look forward to seeing you on the discussion portal, once I figure out how to do it properly. Spotty&#39;s Friend (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not my personal policy, it's the standard many users follow all over Wikipedia. Check the article of the rocket under discussion for another example. Persistent article changes away from the standard without prior consensus is the worst approach I think.
 * You can just start an informal discussion, the need for a more formal process as follow-up (RFC?) might arise as part of the discussion. --mfb (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Muon g-2
g-2 was indeed a set of CERn experiments http://library.cern/archives/CERN_archive/guide/experimental_physics/SC/isamuon but I see your point. To work around it and to make the experiment appear in the list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:CERN_experiments, I crated a redirecting page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muon_g-2_(CERN)&redirect=no Bibliophilen (talk)
 * That is a good solution I think. --mfb (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Why so pessimistic?
Regarding your change from "unaffected" to "without confirmed cases", I mean. Not saying you're wrong, and not saying I'm right, but these places have more than just a lack of medical tech and logisticians in common. They are also effectively self-isolated and socially distant, since before it was cool. The coronavirus might just have difficulty swimming across salt water, permeating a no-man's land or figuring out what the point in moving to Tajikistan might be. Ever think the hope glass could just be 5% full, for a change? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For the island countries the outlook is good, but the countries in Africa and Asia? Pakistan found 14 cases coming from Syria - despite having no shared land border - a week before Syria announced its first case. Anyway, we shouldn't speculate. "Unaffected" is speculation, "no confirmed cases" is what we know. --mfb (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's true enough. For all we know, one of those exotic locales may have been where whatever mystery meat wound up on a Wuhan street used to be the last of its kind. If I were that entirely hypothetical government, I'd keep quiet, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Gateway (Lunar Gateway)
On the NASA website, mention is made of Gateway and no longer Lunar Gateway. And in NASA's budget proposal for 2021 (1 October 2020 to 30 September 2021), mention is made of Gateway. Can I change the name or can you do it? At your convenience. Cordially. — CRS-20 (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know which article you refer to. Gateway alone is ambiguous. --mfb (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Gateway (space station) is not ambiguous. Find me a single reference on the NASA site that says "Lunar Gateway"? — CRS-20 (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I still don't know which article you refer to. --mfb (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Revision as of 05:28, 29 March 2020 Dicklyon (Reverted to revision 947735586 by Mfb (talk): Rv to before undiscussed name change (TW)): you see. — CRS-20 (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I still don't know which article you refer to. Well, I looked it up via Dicklyon's contributions now: This edit by User:Dicklyon. Why don't you ask them? Or propose a move on the talk page, that's what you should normally do if a move might be controversial. I had absolutely nothing to do with this move and its revert. I just happened to be the last user to edit the page before you started undiscussed large-scale edits. --mfb (talk) 07:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, what Mfb said. If you want to change the name, use the process at WP:RM.  Files at NASA that use the term "Lunar Gateway" are easy to find. Dicklyon (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * These are not references from NASA, but from Google and they are old. On March 31, 2020, it was called Gateway (space station). https://www.nasa.gov/topics/moon-to-mars/lunar-gateway Cordially. — CRS-20 (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * These are Google hits for "Lunar Gateway" on nasa.gov sites. You can restrict to the latest month and still find a few.  Even that one you link calls it "Lunar Gateway" in places.   Dicklyon (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if you click on this link it will take you to the "Gateway" page only. Last page of the Gateway https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-artemis-contract-for-gateway-logistics-services Cordially. — CRS-20 (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the article talk page. --mfb (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Join WikiProject Spaceflight

 * I don't see a point in adding my nickname to some member list. --mfb (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Private spaceflight flags
Hello Mfb, I noticed that you reverted my change from the axiom logo to the US flag, and I was just wondering since it is a country flag and not a NASA logo for other astronauts. That would imply that it is used as a nationality indicator rather than as who an astronaut is working for. As well as this Christopher Ferguson a boeing astronaut is labeled with the US flag rather than a boeing logo, here1 and here2 so I believe that the US flag should be used for Michael López-Alegría on the Ax1 mission aswell rather than the Axiom logo. Terasail &#91;Talk&#93; 09:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * NASA is the space agency of the US - NASA astronauts fly for the US. It should get discussed with a broader audience: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight. --mfb (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Falcon 9 Stages
Hello! I saw that you reverted my edit regarding the stages of Falcon 9. I added it because F9 is planned to fly with a SHERPA-FX third stage (a third stage similar to the third stage of Electron) in December on flight SXRS-3. So I figured that while it is normally a two stage rocket, it is worth mentioning that some launches don't fit that criteria. If we don't put that in the infobox, where would be a good place for that information? --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To me SHERPA looks more like payload propulsion instead of a third stage. It's not a part of Falcon 9, it's not built by SpaceX, a customer paid to launch this thing and it sits above the payload adapter that separates the rocket from the payloads. We have a section Falcon 9, it might fit somewhere there. --mfb (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Help wanted for global templates
You have shown support for global templates in the past. Staff of the Wikimedia Foundation view this change as big. We need to convince the Wikimedia Foundation to start working on this. We have to reassure them there is sufficient support by local project communities.

You can help move this forward.

Please do setup a page on the local projects you are (most) active on in the language of the project. Tell your fellow editors why you believe global templates are necessary. Follow the local project decision process to come to a discussion outcome as support or not. There is plenty of time for discussion. Please reach a conclusion before the end of April 2021.

Please translate the coordinating page on meta to languages you are proficient in. meta:Gathering_support_from_local_projects_for_global_templates

Please add a line to this meta page with a link to a discussion page on your local project(s).

The goal is to have the Wikimedia Foundation include a program to develop infrastructure for global templates in their 2021/2022 Annual Plan. The Wikimedia Foundation will decide on the Annual Plan in May/June this year.

The aim is to have several dozen local project communities to show support, and little concerns, issues or objections. Of course, any project can continue to use their local templates.

When you have questions about this initiative you can reach me at ad@undefinedhuikeshoven.org or + 31 6 40293574, and also on Telegram and Signal. You can also raise questions on the talk page on meta. Maybe some people would like to discuss this initiative in a meeting. Please let me know whether you would like to join a Zoom meeting in February.

Regards,

Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Help
Please help me clean up the mess.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's easier to reply in the same place, but okay. I moved the archived content back and the rest will be deleted soon. --mfb (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Attention: Dispute Resolution Request started!
There has been a dispute on the article List of Starship flights. A dispute resolution request has been sent to Wikipedia. 64.121.103.144 (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, although I don't really feel involved in that discussion. Here is a link. --mfb (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is More_eyes_needed_at_Space_elevator.. The discussion is about the topic Space elevator. Thank you. --–LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 18:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have seen the topic but I don't think there is anything that needs further discussion at this point. --mfb (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Wrong physics
Somebody asked you for the tsiolkovsky equation and you pretended it didn't exist in special relativity, I find it outrageous, and you sounded pretty confident, you need to correct your errors, sorry if you feel agressed by my comment but I really can't stand what I read. It's completely false, the phenomenon is exactly the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_rocket $$\Delta v = c \tanh \left(\frac {v_e}{c} \ln \frac{m_0}{m_1} \right).$$ Here is the equation. What you stated about momentum is also false, photons when conserved in a cavity have an inertia and thus behave like the mass they would be by pressure. So what happens? Yes the momentum of a photon is always E/c, but E depends on the frame because of the doppler effect and the number of photons too. Let's say your ship passes close to earth at a speed fairly important, the beam he sends behind him is composed by less photons than the frame of the rocket, the frequency is lower (and it is less collimated interestingly because the energy density is the square of the amplitude), the the energy is lower. E= hv, the Doppler effect decreases v.I feel like you will argue a lot, and I have little time to lose, so please take a book, read how electromagnetic fields are transformed by special relativity and you will understandKlinfran (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to write angry comments you should make sure you are right first. The original rocket equation is nonrelativistic and is not valid for relativistic velocities. That's what I wrote, and it's correct. Yes, you can find a relativistic equivalent - the one you wrote here - but that's a different equation. I have no idea what's the point of your second paragraph. Of course energy and momentum of photons depend on the reference frame. So what? That doesn't change the p=E/c ratio, which is sufficient for the calculation here. --mfb (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

SN15
For what it's worth, the citation you provided says While SpaceX has yet to actually install Starship SN15 on Mount B, the prototype has been attached to a crane.... It does not say it is on the pad. I watch the feeds fairly closely, and I haven't see an indication that it is actually on the pad - presumably there is work yet to be done before mounting it. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 02:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "SpaceX has moved the first full-size flight-proven Starship back to the launch pad" - it's in the first sentence of the article. Note that the edit says "launch pad", not "on launch mount". And it's certainly not on the landing pad. What you added back to the article is obviously incorrect, so please fix it. --mfb (talk) 05:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The edit you made was "on launch pad", which is simply false. We don't look into crystal balls. WP:CRYSTALBALL. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 05:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * More specifically, since you seem to distinguish between launch pad and launch mount (which I haven't seen elsewhere), it's next to the launch mount. As best I can tell, that stretch of concrete has no markers saying "launch pad B" (as opposed to "launch pad a" or "place to put jailed nosecone"). Tarl N.</b> ( discuss ) 05:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The reference distinguishes between launch pad and launch mount, as you already noted in your first comment here - by focusing on the mount instead of the pad. The reference is unambiguous: It is at the launch pad. That happened in the past, no CRYSTALBALL involved. Your new edit is still in clear disagreement with the reference. You also removed the reference and replaced it by an outdated Tweet, which is clearly worse. So I'll ask again: Please fix that. --mfb (talk) 06:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC) PS: Not that it would matter for the article, but yes, there is an area "launch pad B". Here is a map, B is the second pad.
 * I haven't seen that distinction elsewhere. Indeed, I just saw a video, here, titled "Wind delays SN15 lift onto Launch Pad B". So your usage of Launch Pad to refer to the ground around the launch mount seems eccentric. <b style="color:green">Tarl N.</b> ( discuss ) 04:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if you call it eccentric, the references (and SpaceX) use it that way. --mfb (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That URL is an RGV aerial photography image, not SpaceX. The map you earlier referenced indicated launching pad referencing the structures, it didn't make a distinction between launching pad and launching mount. I have not seen a reference that says "the concrete area around the structure is the launching pad, the structure itself is the mount". That distinction seems to be original to you, as best I can tell. <b style="color:green">Tarl N.</b> ( discuss ) 21:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I already pointed out how references (the one I added to the article is just one example) mentioned how Starship has arrived at the pad without being put on the launch mount. Clearly two separate entities. The drawing with the label "expanded suborbital pad B deck" is from a SpaceX proposal. --mfb (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

New message from LemonSlushie
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship § Proposal to Split. &#x0020;The original proposal has been updated after reviewing the comments left.-- LemonSlushie 🍋 (talk) (edits) 15:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

More edits by Vortex
Heat death of the universe has more edits by Vortex3211, I don't know enough to definitively say if this is accurate. Since you looked through it last time, if you get a chance might you take a peek at if this is more nonsense or legitimate? Thanks! Leijurv (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Reverted and reported again, thanks. --mfb (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Falcon 9 - Discussion about the primary unit to be used for thrust
One example: Time and again Elon Musk posted unit of thrust in tonne-force (tf) rather than Newton.

Reason is,

As you could take this below tweet as example,

With 1.5 Thrust/Weight ratio, you need like 150 tf of thrust to lift 100 t rocket, Just simple as that.

Even simpler example is 1N = 100 gram of force which not practical unit, thats why kgF & tF are used by Elon.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1300700639786340353 Chandraprakash (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Musk doesn't write Wikipedia's Manual of Style. ton-force is an obscure unit that shouldn't be used as primary unit in articles. --mfb (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

sound precision vs quote source
Hi, you removed decimals given by NASA in their waypoints list in the Ingenuity article. I totally agree from the technical side but I didnt want to modify (including rounding) the values given by NASA. Schrauber5 (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

/* 2015–2017 */ correction 340km ->mi (due to error in source https://spacenews.com/spacex-asks-fcc-to-make-exception-for-leo-constellations-in-connect-america-fund-decisions/ )
Dear Mfb, None of your source about "Starlink at 340km altitude" is an official primary source from SpaceX or associated company. 2 of your sources are from https://spacenews.com/, where there is a confusion between miles and km, as corrected in more recent publications ( https://spacenews.com/fcc-oks-lower-orbit-for-some-starlink-satellites/ ). This is lower than the lowest altitude indicated on official SpaceX at 550km~340miles (even lower than the temporary parking orbit at 380km) https://www.spacex.com/updates/starlink-update-04-28-2020/index.html. For your information, the lifetime at such a low altitude would be < a few months without active propulsion to compensate drag due to residual atmosphere (for example see fig. 10 in https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1144&context=smallsat ). You can also notice my correction has been accepted by https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Vega on the french page after the same exact discussion, before been also removed without any primary source (this is not vandalism?) I also contacted Shkelzen Cakaj, the author of your sources 4 and 5, who also use the same sources https://spacenews.com/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink as references. I will let you know his answer, but I hope the data from official SpaceX should be enough to convince you. Please let me know if you find another reliable primary source with this curious altitude of 340km, or if you accept my correction. Best regards, --Samuel.Damoy (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC) (new user)
 * Here is the FCC document authorizing the VLEO constellation: "SpaceX also proposes to add a very-low-Earth orbit (VLEO) NGSO constellation, consisting of 7,518 satellites operating at altitudes from 335 km to 346 km". Is that enough to stop this nonsense? SpaceX is only talking about the LEO constellation on that website as the VLEO constellation is still a bit into the future. The satellites have ion thrusters to maintain their orbits. --mfb (talk) 03:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for FCC source about Starlink at 340km
OK thank you Mfb, Documents about SpaceX from FCC are reliable sources, and ion thruster is a logical explanation Sorry about that --Samuel.Damoy (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC) --83.165.149.118 (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)