User talk:Rosbif73/Archive/1

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Rosbif73. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Lklundin (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Competition between Airbus and Boeing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bombardier ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Competition_between_Airbus_and_Boeing check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Competition_between_Airbus_and_Boeing?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Space mannequin
Regarding your revert here, the reason why it needs to read differently is because: (1) this is an encyclopedia that contains facts; (2) it's not a known fact the mannequin is still in the Roadster since video transmission only continued for four hours after launch; (3) we can't say it's still there in Wiki-voice, all we know is that it was there at launch and for four hours after that; (4) to claim it's still there is an act of WP:CRYSTAL; and (5) we use reliable sources, not assumption - no reliable sources can or do say the mannequin is still seated in the car in the position it was in at time of launch, let alone still in the car at all.

I'm going to appeal to the better angels of your nature and ask that you self-revert to the previous language that addresses the mannequin was known to be in the car in that position at the time of launch and for a period of time following the launch. It makes sense, it's encyclopedic, and it doesn't violate policy re CRYSTAL and the MOS (regarding past and present events) to use the more accurate language. Thanks. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 16:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ; the only conceivable way Starman might not still be in the car would be some kind of collision with an asteroid or other such orbital object, which if it occurred would likely have destroyed the whole upper stage and car too. We can hardly imply that the mannequin might not be there without also adding an element of doubt to the wording that it "is now an artificial satellite of the sun" - and that would be a far bigger act of WP:CRYSTAL. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I think you are probably right, however, assuming the mannequin is still there based on personal knowledge or a hunch is considered WP:OR. We have no evidence nor reliable sources saying that the mannequin is absolutely still in the seated position or even still in the car.  Even if the Musk/SpaceX team said was still there based on their assumptions, that would be a WP:PRIMARY source and also not allowable as evidence.  We'd need a third party source to say definitively it's there, and we don't have that.  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 16:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware, we don't have any evidence or source (primary or other) implying that it might not still be there. If you have such, go ahead and change it, of course, but I see no valid reason for me to self-revert (though I won't get into an edit war if you insist on changing it anyway). Rosbif73 (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Spacing around snd template not needed
Just as an fyi, this – and this –          and               –          this and – this        and all         that       and        everything. all produce the same result because the wp interpreter ignores repeated spaces unless html markup is used. (Use editor to see what I've done). But including the extra spaces makes the editing easier: this –  is much easier than – and –  that in a dense paragraph. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Repeated spaces are ignored, yes, but snd expands to a non-breaking space followed by an en dash (and followed by a plain space, but that one gets ignored). If you insert a space before the template, then firstly the point of the non-breaking space is lost, and secondly an extra space is displayed. Look closely at the output of your example above, you'll see that the gaps between the words and the en dashes are not all the same. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I never! Collapse of stout party. Exit left, pursued by bear. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Royal surnames
There is no consensus, OK. Please continue the discussion and leave the MOS untouched until there is agreement. GiantSnowman 11:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It seemed to me that noone was objecting to the wording that was proposed first on the talk page, and that subsequent discussions there were focusing on other, tangential issues. Admittedly I'm a relative newbie as regards MOS edits, and I do appreciate that MOS needs stronger consensus than most article edits, but even so... Rosbif73 (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Expedition 60 revert
article is going to need that reference before it can get reviewed..I do NPR--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it's already been reviewed successfully... In any case, Expedition 60 is getting mentioned in other articles and needed to be created; surely it was better to create it with the tentative crew assignment than just with "TBD"? Rosbif73 (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Sukhoi Superjet 100
Merci pour le coup de main!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Connect Airways has been accepted
 Connect Airways, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! SamHolt6 (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Connect_Airways help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

DYK for Connect Airways
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Boeing 737 Max
Thanks for the correction in the Boeing 737 MAX more users field. I had misunderstood how the number applied to the Infobox.--Gciriani (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reverting a big chunk of content I moved to the 2019 Boeing 737 MAX groundings article. I am not sure how much duplication is needed for each article that points to the main article. :) Shencypeter (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I agree that some of the content would be better moved to the groundings article (and/or duplicates content that is already there). But rather than simply deleting it, a summary should still be left in the Max article. If you (or someone else) doesn't do so in the meantime, I might work on a summary myself later today. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, for your help, Please note that each paragraph has been copied verbatim to the respective sections in the main article and redundancies have been edited out by other people.Shencypeter (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit, curly quote was automated in iPhone keyboard Shencypeter (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

737
Oops, thanks! Best wishes 2A01:4C8:102C:DDA3:1DE:2F71:46DA:ADD3 (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Boeing Brasil
even when you are wrong, there is the three revertion rule... so it is kept wrongly your entry. It is a pity because the guys you kept do not work as CEO anymore and other details... The name of Embraer was dropped. However the sold is to be documentary concluded in final this year. I recommend you read those newspapers to know more... Too frozen with snow in your webcams...https://www.ovale.com.br/index.php?id=%2Fsearch%2Findex.php&q=embraer https://g1.globo.com/sp/vale-do-paraiba-regiao/noticia/2019/05/23/boeing-brasil-commercial-e-o-nome-de-nova-empresa-de-aviacao-em-fusao-com-embraer.ghtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.23.126 (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * See for example which makes it clear that Embraer continues to exist. Its business aviation and military divisions will retain the Embraer name, and Embraer will continue to own 20% of the commercial aircraft entity to be known as "Boeing Brasil–Commercial". That entity has its own wiki page at Boeing–Embraer joint venture, which will no doubt be renamed in the future, once the deal is finalised and the name change becomes effective. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * We will see after January 2020, but even the products are considered to change to Boeing, as example, B175, B190 & B195... It is not sure if Embraer name in military will continue. For sure is your revertion destroyed the key people to an old data and the info about production transfer was lost... Even though the picture shows ERJ145, which is since long not produced anymore... So unprecisions, but Boeing now conducts all decisions, even in engineering staff... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.23.126 (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add back any information that you believe was lost, provided that (a) it applies today, not in the future, (b) it applies to the whole of Embraer, not just to the commercial aircraft entity, and (c) that it is backed by reliable sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * well, as soon as you reverted what is gonna to be real in couple of months, let's the wiki experts about brazil change. Au revoir — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.23.126 (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

737 Max cite
Hello!

Additional info for the removed sentence you fixed: The deletionist ip user was not aware that the source after the next sentence was the source for it. Cite: [...] Elwell said. “The track of the Ethiopian Airlines flight was very close — and behaved very similarly — to the Lion Air flight.” — Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)    20:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your reply to my 737 MAX question. Appreciated. Springnuts (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Re: Daylight time
Fair enough, thanks for letting me know! Maybe I'll look into doing that disamb page when I can. Much appreciated. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Synchronicity
It's very neat when I saw an interesting article, and I go to the relevant article section to add the new info and you already added exactly what I wanted to add! Thanks!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Once again! (and in fact it's much more frequent than that!) Cheers!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we seem to read the same sources (not just Flight) and have overlapping areas of interest. The same phenomenon happens in reverse, too :-) Rosbif73 (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Widely unknown ...
I believe "widely unknown" referred not only to the pilots  but also to the aviation experts,  regulatory professionals, journalists, airlines ,... See for example Pierre5018 (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

In the original document you cited, "widely unknown" probably was intended to refer to more than just pilots, as your cite above confirms, but quite honestly it was pretty clumsy writing by Rep. Stanton's staff, and shoehorning it in along with "only after" just made it tautological. "Not widely known" would be the usual turn of phrase in English, but if we were to use that instead, somebody would be bound to add a by whom cleanup tag! An alternative might be "the new automatic trim feature was disclosed only after..." but many people frown on unnecessary passive voice. And quite honestly, especially in the lead, does it really matter that people other than pilots learnt of it at the same time? Rosbif73 (talk) 06:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough ! ... thanks Pierre5018 (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge third anniversary
The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada is approaching its third-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and have no unsourced claims.

You may use the above button to submit entries, or bookmark this link for convenience. For more information, please see WP:CAN10K. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

B737
I have made a proposal to restructre the B737 page at Talk:Boeing_737. Your input is invited. E x nihil (talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

world's largest
I understand it could ease a sentence's flow, but "World's largest" looks not very serious, more Guiness book than Encyclopedia, and may be seen as WP:PUFFERY. It's the same in French: "le plus grand au monde" seems less serious than "le plus grand".--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As a native speaker, I wouldn't say it looks less serious. In French we'd likely see le premier avionneur mondial and nobody would bat an eyelid at mondial; indeed it makes it clear that we're not talking about the leading French airframer. And yes, it also eases the flow of the sentence! Rosbif73 (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation from a local classification is a valid point.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Scottish independence: Revision history
Eh, I'll not fight you on this one. But if Mike ever comes to Canada, we sure as shit ain't calling him a Lord. TrackZero (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Flybe
My dear Rosbif73,

It has come to my attention that we have disagreed on the wording of the Flybe article. I have decided to take a noticeably optimistic approach by referring to the airline in the present tense, unless it were, in the eyes of the law, to become legally defunct. This has not happened at the time of writing. Administration, as noted by me, is a process that can be temporary, and it is not unknown for companies to survive this process and return to better times. I mentioned the phoenix in one of my edit summaries. This is a mythological bird that is often reborn from its own ashes. I suggest you read or watch Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets for more info on this bird, or have a look on the web for phoenix info. My intention was to compare Flybe to this bird.

However, it appears that you have wanted to jump to conclusions and use the past tense, which in my opinion, incidentally, is decidedly inferior. Obviously predicting the future is not easy, so my preference is to word the article to refer to the present, as I have mentioned above.

So, why not come to an agreement with me? Perhaps a compromise could work? Let us work together to come up with a solution to the wording of the article and let us avoid edit warring. I write to you to ensure that no edit warring occurs.

I look forward to sorting this article out with you, I hope to hear from you soon,

Pablothepenguin (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

You're entitled to your optimistic opinion. Maybe you're right and Flybe will rise from its ashes. But that's not the point. Wikipedia is about verifiable facts, not opinions. As far as I'm aware, there are no reliable sources that suggest Flybe is likely to imitate the phoenix. So until and unless any such sources emerge, the past tense is the most appropriate. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Elon Musk
This is a verbal source and does not have an article attached to it. Please add information again. And any changes done to this page need to be verified by Elon Musk before revising. Interstellar20 (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Err, might I suggest you read the Wikipedia policy on verifiability, which says, amongst other things, that [e]ven if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. You might also like to read the guidelines on reliable sources and biographies of living persons... Rosbif73 (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The articles on the information that you are insisting stay up there are false. You should be careful about what you post, you wouldn't want anyone to bring suit against you for providing false information to the public in an attempt to mislead them and harass Mr. Musk and Ms. Reed. If this is a problem, ask Mr. Musk, he will verify it. Interstellar20 (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

engineer, industrial designer
Elon Musk Hi there, he is not an Engineer, he has no qualification as such and he does no industrial design either, he employs people to do that, he is many great things but claiming things he does not hold qualifactions for or actually do is false, much better to focus on the great things that he actually does do, regards Govindaharihari (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

are you happy with my removal that claimed he was a scientist? Govindaharihari (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like you to tell me also, what has he engineered and what has he designed? thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The word "scientist" (added to the article only recently) has no sources backing it up, so of course you were right to remove it. However, for engineer and designer the situation is different. Of course much of this work is done by others under Elon's oversight, but there are reliable sources cited stating that he does some engineering and design work personally. Also, bear in mind the usage of the word "engineer" - there are many places around the world where anyone who does engineering work can be referred to as an engineer, and only a few jurisdictions that mandate specific qualifications. This has been discussed before on the article's talk page, and indeed that would be the best place if you wish to discuss this further. Rosbif73 (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Rosbif73. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

2019 in aviation
Hi in regards to the Piper Malibu crash on 21 Jan 2019, just curious as to why it's not considered noteworthy from an aviation point of view? It has its own wiki page, and while the crash itself wasn't from a major airline or had many fatalities it was still carrying a noteworthy passenger, which is why I added it- I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, thank you! Finnybug (talk) 06:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:AIRCRASH sets out two conditions that can justify a standalone article for a GA accident: either an aviation-related factor such as a major change in design, or the presence of a person notable enough to have their own wiki page. On the "Aviation in 20xx" pages, we habitually only include GA accidents for aviation-related factors, and exclude those that have articles only because of a notable person on board. The Kobe Bryant helicopter crash was excluded from the 2020 in aviation article on the same basis, for example. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

B 737
There is an invitation to discuss in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boeing_737 that might interest you. E x nihil (talk) 10:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Wylfa
I think we should leave this one until hitachi put out a statement. The project hasn't been cancelled officially yet, and is being talked over by the board, but has a high chance of being cancelled. The gov may also rush back to them at the last minute to try rescue their energy policy. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/09/15/business/corporate-business/hitachi-dropping-british-nuclear-plant/ https://www.reuters.com/article/hitachi-nuclear/update-1-hitachi-to-exit-stalled-british-nuclear-power-project-mainichi-newspaper-idUSL4N2GB4HM Thanks. Will be a shame to see the project go. Alex Berrow (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I worded my addition carefully in line with the BBC article that I cited, which indeed makes it clear that this isn't quite official yet. IMO it is better to leave cautious wording in place for the time being, if only to avoid a less cautious edit from someone else who reads the news! Naturally, it can and should be updated once we have something more official to cite. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, agreed. Guessing that if wylfa goes, oldbury will go with it as well. Alex Berrow (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Bradwell B
Thanks for the edit on CGN. Did not see that one myself at all. Will be glad to see them out of this country IMO, their is no place for them especially considering which state owns them and what they have done in terms of human rights and just generally being an ass to its neighbours and the world. Hopefully following this, the gov will set up the RAB funding method and invest heavily into a partnership between RR and EDF for the SMR projects which could utilise the abandoned sites. Maybe even NuScale will get involved since they were also looking at U.K. operations at one point and now it seems that the market is completely unsaturated in terms on nuclear capacity for the future, so I don’t think you could be in a better place. The gov would be sure to back any project since wylfa was a major part of their energy policy for the future. High hopes for future projects but need to see change occur within the next few months for any hope of meeting the 2030 100g/kWh target Alex Berrow (talk)
 * The report is a bit speculative, but it'll be interesting to see what happens and what it implies for the future. Short term, will CGN have to pull out of HPC as well as SZC? And longer term, what mix of reactor designs will the UK end up with? Still, I'm not sure this is the best place to be chatting about it... Rosbif73 (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Bombardier CRJ
sorry i'm new to wikipedia CHARBEL12345678910 (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rosbif CHARBEL12345678910 (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rosbif MHI RJ Aviation Group acquired the CRJ Series program the source :https://www.aerotelegraph.com/en/lufthansa-uses-mitsubishi-jets Appears the name: Mitsubishi CRJ Galizz (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

ACJ 220
Thanks. The full specifications don't seem to be available yet, but I've added those that are identical to the airliner version, plus those given in the product sheet, under. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

MCAS
Definition, per Boeing : https://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max/737-max-software-updates.page#/definitions

Key Definitions Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) – flight control law implemented on the 737 MAX to improve aircraft handling characteristics and decrease pitch-up tendency at elevated angles of attack.

Encyclopedic or not ?
Chaos and catastrophic are not sensationalism, but common terms used by officials.

Chaos : Example from the FAA: 1997-2019 Update to FAA Historical Chronology: Civil Aviation and the Federal Government, 1926-1996 (Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration, 1998) https://www.faa.gov/about/history/media/1996-2019_chronology.pdf "October 25, 2019: Indonesia’s National Transportation Safety Committee released its report on the Lion Air Boeing 737 Max jet accident. The committee reported a combination of design flaws by Boeing and inadequate pilot training and maintenance lapses by Lion Air led to the crash. Investigators listed nine contributing factors, including an automated system’s reliance on a single sensor; the miscalibration of that sensor during repairs; a lack of flight and maintenance documentation; and a failure by the flight crew to manage the chaos in the cockpit as emergency warnings sounded. (See October 23, 2019; November 22, 2019.) "

Example from the presss: "Boeing Underestimated Cockpit Chaos on 737 Max, N.T.S.B. Says" : "But officials with the safety board suggested that Boeing was too confident the average pilot could easily recover the plane in that situation, because the company had not considered the chaos that ensued inside the cockpit." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/business/boeing-737-max-ntsb-mcas.html

Catastrophic: This is the actual industrial terminology for safety assurance. Conditions leading to an accident, per the FAA advisory circulars and per the SAE Society for Automotive Engineering, ARP 4754A. --Pierre5018 (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , sure, the reports used those terms, and in some circumstances they can even have specific definitions. But they still come across as hyperbole in the lead of an encyclopedic article. Also, surely the article's talk page would be a better place to be discussing this and seeking wider input. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Sizewell C
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/943807/201214_BEIS_EWP_Command_Paper_LR.pdf The gov released an energy white paper which includes information on financing for the project as well as for SMR's and AMR's. If you have time, could you put the information into the article? Page 52 onwards is where it is. other useful articles: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/14/sizewell-c-government-talks-nuclear-power-station-edf-suffolk https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55299511 Alex Berrow (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hualong One
Project announcements based on proposed international collaboration often lead to nothing. Rather than embarrass one or both parties with a cancellation, it's more common for them to be quietly forgotten. JQ (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Changed the name Superjet 100 and not changed in Flightradar24
Hello Rosbif why not changed the name Superjet 100 in application Flightradar24? BeirutMa2021 (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what Flightradar24's policy is regarding changing aircraft names. But if they are still referring to the aircraft by the Sukhoi name then that is an additional argument against changing the page name.
 * PS. It would be more usual to use the article's talk page rather than a user's talk page for this sort of comment. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Play airline edits
Hello, I'm User:Malvinsub3. I noticed that you changed my content edit in an article, Play (airline), the original facts were wrong. See facts in the companies Information Memorandum at: https://wab-website.cdn.prismic.io/wab-website/1911b0f7-f947-423a-8d73-3dd6369905d1_PLAY-Information-Memorandum-14-June-2021.pdf
 * The article includes references for the two amounts that you changed, and you didn't give an explanation or a new source. Now that you have indicated a new source, feel free to discuss (on the article's talk page) why you think your source is more accurate than the ones already cited in the article. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Small Modular Reactor Reliable Sources
I added two sources from the article in the lead section with the goal of removing the template message. I am new to Wikipedia, so I hope I followed the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScientistBuilder (talk • contribs) 17:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You've added a reference, which is an excellent start. Now feel free to restore the corresponding part of your text (deleted by me) immediately preceding the reference that backs it up.
 * Also, a tip: on talk pages, sign your texts with four tildes, like so: ~ . Rosbif73 (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Elon Musk: revert
I respectfully disagree with your revert of my recent edit in the Elon Musk article. The word "but" is one of the most misused and overused words in the English language. Its proper use is when it connects two independent clauses and the writer wishes the reader to do a negative comparison between them. Too often in English it is used to connect clauses where no negative comparison is intended, as is the case in the changes I made (replacing "but" with "and" or just a semicolon) in the article. You will notice that I did not change every "but" in the article; if there was a negative clause comparison, "but" remained. Wikipedia guidelines in WP:MOS and several of its sub-articles include the word "but" as a word that should be used sparingly, like the word "current" or "currently" that is often overused and provides no additional information. You will also notice that I made some changes other than "but". If your opinion is that the "but" changes were not correct, then you should have corrected them, not revert all of the changes. I decline to get involved in edit wars and will not redo my changes. I respectfully request that you reconsider the revert. Truthanado (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've reinstated a couple of your changes, but stand by my position that "but" is more appropriate than "and" in most of the instances. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

A320 Family
Thanks for the correction on the Airbus A320 family page. GreenSixSided (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

787
Ref this diff - [] - fair point, the sentence wasn’t well worded, but the issues have been going on long enough to justify being in the lede I think. Any chance you could improve on what was there? Springnuts (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Emirates EDI/DXB
no offence, but surely a primary source is more reliable than a secondary source no? Aviationlover1121xx (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * No, not according to Wikipedia policy: WP:PST. That doesn't mean that a primary source can't be valid in some circumstances. But regardless of whether your source for the contested edit that you keep making is primary or secondary, you need to cite it in the article. See WP:CITE. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Flybe fleet table
Many thanks for the correction with that - I honestly didn't realise we were already in October! C F Spring (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Camilla
Howdy. I won't ask you anymore questions, concerning Camilla. Seems when I do, another editor keeps cutting in. GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Blue Origin
Doesn't tiles have to be in caps. Test Vehicle vs. Test vehicle? Freedom Without The Beef (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * No, title case is not used on Wikipedia, see MOS:CAPS and more specifically MOS:SECTIONCAPS. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks for the clarification. Freedom Without The Beef (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Can we keep the "commonly referred to as Blue Origin" in there? I think it flows smoother. :)
 * Also I believe a . should go after LLC "LLC." That's how I was told in school to write it but maybe I'm wrong? Freedom Without The Beef (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Have a look at almost any article about a company or corporation, you'll see that the lead sentence uses the company's full title and legal status, but doesn't repeat the short name or trading name. As to the abbreviation, see MOS:ABBR and note that LLC doesn't have a point in the Limited liability company article. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. I understand that. Could we remove the New Shepard and New Glenn separate Wiki links. Looking at those pages some info seems wrong per their talk page. We should just refer them in the main article. What are your thoughts on that? Freedom Without The Beef (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If there's "something wrong" with those pages then the solution is to correct them, not refrain from linking to them. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ok,
 * I'll look at them when I have time. probably sooner than later Freedom Without The Beef (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * although are the articles "main articles" or is Blue Origin the main article and those sub articles because they are things Blue origin says they make?
 * I just think they shouldn't be called main articles. Freedom Without The Beef (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but that's just standard Wikipedia practice. The New Glenn article is the main article about that particular rocket. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Bundled AFDs
Hi Rosbif - I take your point about bundling being preferable from an efficiency point of view and have done the latest wave of Airline destination AFDs as a small bundle of five articles. FOARP (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know, I'll keep an eye on them. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Just for your interest/info
Hey I thought I’d just let you know that some edits you reverted recently (Special:Diff/1158823446) were the work of users under a sockpuppet investigation, and some of them have already been blocked. Please see Sockpuppet investigations/2021Porto Final. Fork99 (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Unmanned surface vehicle
If you consider Reuters and Naval News to be poorly sourced material then you have an unrealistically high bar for sources. I noted that since 2018 you have edited this page, some people I have encountered, whom feel moved enough to leave a message on my talk page, are motivated more by a sense of ownership than actual concern. I don't mind people wanting to add, reword or correct my contributions. As someone with dyslexia I run a higher risk of making grammatical mistakes. Such additions improve the quality of Wikipedia. However a complete removal, and your comments on the grammar, is destructive and petty. I won't engage in a war of reverting the page or add the material again, as this is destructive. However I will defend my right to reply to users such as yourself who make thinly based claims against me whilst claiming the title of WikiGnome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjmclellan82 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies are in order after taking a closer look at the sources. The mention of taking warheads from Russian bombs was hidden in a diagram but it is there. The Naval News article doesn't mention trained dolphins, but the Reuters one does. I do note that you have been warned before about poor sourcing, however. As to your claim of ownership, prior to today I had made a total of 4 edits to the USV article, which hardly makes me an "owner". Rosbif73 (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I apologise if I got a little carried away. I have worked very hard to make sure that my contributions are worthy of Wikipedia. Jjmclellan82 (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Other British monarch requested move discussions currently taking place
Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent GoodFaith Revert
Added Royal mint 75 Birthday coin information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_III&oldid=prev&diff=1183775774

Amolkumar (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, I reverted that addition of yours because it is definitely not notable enough for the lead, and probably not even notable enough for inclusion elsewhere in the article (see WP:UNDUE). Also note that the "in a heartwarming gesture" wording is not encyclopedic language (see MOS:EDITORIAL). Rosbif73 (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

RVC for king charles
there is already an evidence here: https://www.instagram.com/reel/CzV9MEuMp41/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== Do you see the king is ALREADY wearing it?? 218.102.117.127 (talk) 14:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add the information again with a proper reference. However, note that simply mentioning "evidence on youtube" as you did in your edit summary is not enough, you need to add a proper reference as explained here. Note that the Instagram post from the Royal Family account is a primary source, but it is much better to cite a reliable, independent secondary source (such as a news article) if at all possible. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Revert sur Transavia
Bonjour, pourquoi avoir reverté la suppression de l'information erronée comme quoi Transavia France était une filiale de Transavia ? J'avais pourtant mis la source (corpo certes, mais légitime dans le cas présent). Était-ce parce que vous souhaitez que la page Transavia France soit tout de même mentionnée ? Merci d'avance. Jul.H (talk) 12:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * parce que la page que vous citez dit juste qu'en 2006 Transavia était une filiale à 95% d'Air France, mais ne dit rien sur la participation actuelle. Oh, and we're on enwiki here, so WP:ENGLISHPLEASE. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A quick search for a reliable secondary source suggests that Transavia France is actually 100% owned by Air France, so maybe you were right to remove the information. But as you said initially, it would indeed be useful to keep a link to Transavia France in the lead. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, I went too fast in the modification of the page. Transavia France is indeed 100% owned by Air France, the info I put in the introduction is then wrong. I would like to delete it and just mention in the article that Transavia has owned a small part of Transavia France in the past. Would that be alright? Jul.H (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As long as you include suitable references, feel free to make whatever WP:BOLD edits you feel are necessary. There's no need to ask for permission! Rosbif73 (talk) 11:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Foreign orders and decorations for Her Most Gracious Majesty The Queen Camilla
Good Morning Dearest Rosbif73,

Her Most Gracious Majesty The Queen have been received the Grand Cross of The Order of Legion of Honour at Elysée Palace, Paris during the first day of the State Visit of Their Most Excellent Majesties in France. The ceremony was private because Mrs. Emmanuel MACRON, The First Lady, couldn't be awarded by His Most Excellent Majesty The King: The First Lady has no official role.

Sources: Boulevard Voltaire, 2023, August, 14th, Georges Michel (journalist); Voici, 2023, September, 20th, 4h50 p.m. Sonia Ouadhi (journalist).

Can you accept my information and make the modification of the page?

Thank you so much,

Best Wishes

François MR FRANCOIS DUBRULLE (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @MR FRANCOIS DUBRULLE, do you have any online sources confirming that the award was made? I have not been able to locate any sources at all in English; in French I find (which is presumably the Voici article you are referring to) but this only states that the ceremony was expected to be held, not that it actually took place. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Dearest Rosbif73,
 * I'm sorry, I have no other sources.
 * The ceremony was made privately...
 * No press, no official photographs, no official statement.
 * But you know that, during a State Visit, The Heads of State mutually confer orders and decorations.
 * His Most Excellent Majesty The King is a Knight Grand Cross of The Order of The Legion of Honour since 1984, October, 23rd. At that time, His Most Excellent Majesty The King was The Prince of Wales.
 * His Excellency Mr. The President of The French Republic was made Honorary Knight Grand Cross of The Most Honourable Order of The Bath on 2023, September, 20th (the french page about The President uses the same source Voici).
 * Moreover, you remember that His Royal Highness The Late Prince Philip, The Duke of Edinburgh was made Knight Grand Cross of The Order of The Legion of Honour on 1957, April, 9th (State Visit of Her Most Excellent Majesty The Late Queen in France 1957, April, 8th-1957, April, 11th).
 * The only solution for The French authorities during The State Visit of Their Most Excellent Majesties The King and Queen was to confer The Legion of Honour to Her Most Gracious Majesty The Queen.
 * And, for The State Banquet at Château de Versailles in the evening, only His Most Excellent Majesty The King and His Excellency Mr. The President of The French Republic wore their decorations and only in a simple form (rosette and no sash, cordon or plaque).
 * I hope these explanations can satisfy you.
 * Best Wishes
 * François MR FRANCOIS DUBRULLE (talk) 11:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The question is not what you or I "know" or what we can deduce, the issue is WP:VERIFIABILITY. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Reverts?
Why? Special:Diff/1192046114? RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Because a totally unrealistic flight sim crash video is not exactly on topic with a view to improving the article. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose thats true. Another name for it would be humor, which I don't think is a sin for a talk page.  But, more importantly, you also reverted Special:Diff/1187547030 at the same time. RoySmith (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was unintentional and I've just reinstated it. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Taskforce proposal
@Rosbif73 You are a WikiGnome and so am I and your minor revisions every now and then have helped a lot and I hope you continue your excellent work on English Wikipedia. But my actual purpose for reaching out to you today is to extend an invitation to join the recently formed WikiProject British Royalty/William, Prince of Wales task force whose primary objective at present is to take William's article to FA status. You did some valuable work in November and have been always there to revise any of my not so accurate edits. Hence please join and collaborate. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, I don't intend to sign up for a task force, but that won't stop me contributing as and when I spot things that need tweaking. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Rosbif73 That's your wish and I respect it. But its nothing wrong to join. Its only an official hub for receiving peer comments. If you want to join, please do so most readily. Happy New Year in advance btw and hope you had a merry Christmas. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Rosbif73 I was not pestering you but since I receive no reply henceforth I assume you intend to stick to your original decision. Anyways you can always chime in and put your views at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty/William, Prince of Wales task force. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Rosbif73 Would you mind lending me, Keivan and Векочел a helping hand in Queen Camilla's GA Review? Your comments and contribution will be appreciated. Regards MSincccc (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @MSincccc I'm not going to be on wiki much if at all for the next week, but I'll take a look if I can. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

2024 in aviation
Hi i understand that you have reverted a few crashes i added on the february section, i read that these incidents i added were run-of-the-mill accidents from you. The helicopter crash i added for the 11th is understandable but can i get more info on why the Beechcraft Bonzana one is removed? There were a few deaths and made big news around Florida. TyHaliburtn (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @TyHaliburtn. There are literally hundreds of general aviation accidents with fatalities every year in the US alone, and hundreds more around the world. They are often newsworthy, especially in local news, but Wikipedia is not a news site. We need to be asking ourselves whether it is encyclopedic to list a particular accident. If there is nothing special (from an aviation point of view) to distinguish it from the hundreds of other such accidents, then the answer is usually no.
 * For that Beechcraft crash in particular, an article had been created but there was a consensus to delete as non-notable, which is why I removed the accident from the page rather than just tagging it as of disputed importance. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Where is Kate? for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? 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/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) 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 until the discussion has finished. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️) 11:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)