This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Hi. You reverted my edit on the Hubble Telescope article as I quoted another WP article. Thanks for correcting me, I agree that is not a valid source. However, the actual edit is correct. OTA means Optical Tube Assembly in astronomy. It is only part of a telescope. See, for example, on these telescope manufacturer's sites; https://uk.telescope.com/Telescopes/Telescope-Optical-Tube-Assemblies/pc/1306/1323.uts https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/skywatcher-optical-tube-assemblies.html https://optcorp.com/collections/optical-tube-assemblies-ota https://www.firstlightoptics.com/optical-tube-assemblies.html https://www.celestron.com/collections/optical-tubes Thanks Point of Presence talk 23:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi there. I've conducted a GA review of the Sukhoi Su-57 and I've listed some of my reasons for why it doesn't qualify and should be delisted until further improvement. I would like to hear your feedback on the matter. Steve7c8 ( talk) 18:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.
If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 ( talk) 17:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and |
The WikiEagle |
The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter |
Volume I — Issue 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Announcements
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Members
New Members
Number of active members: 386.
Total number of members: 921.
Closed Discussions
|
Article Statistics This data reflects values from DMY.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New/Ongoing Discussions
On The Main Page Did you know...
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at
The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the
mailing list. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I notice your edit at Alabama. You may wish to comment at Talk:Texas#Ease of voting. Cheers. Magnolia677 ( talk) 20:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi there,
I’m a little confused about what I did incorrectly while updating the number of AC-130s in service, could you explain further? I only make good faith edits so this is the first time I believe an edit of mine has been reverted. Dynen ( talk) 21:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Take a look on the Polish Army article, it says they are going to buy them. They aren't just planning to, they are -- DBenner29 ( talk) 05:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)DBenner29
Given your activity at Falcon 9 and other SpaceX topics, I think you would be interested at this thread at Wikiproject Spaceflight. Regards, CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 03:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the B-61 capability does not seem to be in the F-35 article and others covered here: [1]. ErnestKrause ( talk) 15:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
MOS:PSEUDOHEAD says semicolon for bold markup is reserved for "description lists'. Jennica✿ / talk 01:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC) 01:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Wondered if you can add anything to this circular Discussion – In short the debate is over aircraft receiving individual entries into a table vs. a single entry (notability issue) as it seems to conflict with aircraft ID's - FOX 52 talk! 04:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Are you related to Kenneth Finlayson in any way? I've seen your edits quite a bit around military articles where I usually edit and came across his name several times for the articles he's written for Veritas. I wondered if there was a connection. Jasonkwe ( talk) ( contribs) 21:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Fnlayson, I am the editor (SpaceHist65) that made the structural changes to the NASA article in the last 4-6 weeks to move it back in direction of (hopefully) a good article (in part to fix the restructure template that had been applied to article). No one had constructively updated the article for content in something approaching years. Changes/fixes flagged today were intended to identify items that would assist in potential re-assessment. Reorder was a minor re-alignment in the Research area to elevate research to a level consistent with flight program and re-order to bin similar topics together. Happy to collaborate if there is interest. Hasn't been shown in the article or talk for quite some time. SpaceHist65 ( talk) 16:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 ( talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}} |
Donner60 ( talk) 05:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and |
Have a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! -Fnlayson ( talk) 15:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
BilCat ( talk) 05:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Fnlayson,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—
Moops ⋠
T⋡ 02:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
— Moops ⋠ T⋡ 02:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand why you tagged Deadline Hollywood as {{ better source needed}} [2]. Deadline is an industry trade journal and among the more reliable sources available for film information. It would seem to be more than enough to confirm the title "Transformers: A New Generation." -- 109.78.198.42 ( talk) 19:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
|reason=
if I am not sure a tag is specific enough to make my intentions clear. --
109.78.205.85 (
talk) 13:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello, multiple episodes of Buck Rogers in the 25th Century take place on fictional planets, with some of the featured planets including Aldebaran II, Vistula, Xantia, Mycos, Katar, Pendar, Philoctetes, and Arcadis, as detailed on the episode list. Earth is not the only planet to be featured in the series. So could I reinsert the TV shows set on fictional planets category? The Editor 155 ( talk) 17:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Hulk. It's always nice to meet a worthy opponent, who explains his or her reversions. Sorry if mine rubbed you the wrong way, I'm also inedible, it just happens. Anyway, "In pop culture" does explain more than "Features" would about what's currently in the section, no question. But do you think we still need that enormous chunk of nagging invisible text? Less importantly, do you want to help standardize Enola Gay with its own pop section? No rush on either question, just something to think about, maybe. InedibleHulk ( talk) 03:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I would like to thank you for your help in editing the Iron Maiden band’s Wikipedia page. In recent days there has been an act of vandalism and deletion of data without any discussion or reflection. This was done by an unregistered user, which has happened many times in the past. Since I don't have the proper permissions (I'm not an administrator) and I don't know many tools available on the Wiki, I need help in protecting the Band’s site from such incidents. Can the page be secured in a similar way as in the case of other thematic pages? I think it would be worth doing to prevent similar situations from happening again in the future. If you can, help solve this problem. Once again - many thanks! ~~ RALFFPL ( talk) 11:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi. This IPer ( /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/80.168.88.247) use to vandalise Iron Maiden site many times especially in the last days. ~~ RALFFPL ( talk) 17:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Regarding that IP editor who is changing the verb tense in the first sentence of Concorde, take note that the IP editor is edit-warring—has now made that change three times today. I'm not going to be at my PC for a while (it's lunchtime), but I will report the IP if it continues this afternoon unless you or someone else beats me to it. 1995hoo ( talk) 17:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi I just wanted to say that the Cessna 206 has appeared in love is in the air so why doesn’t have a part about it Cessna 402c ( talk) 06:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and |
Have a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you and yours. -Fnlayson ( talk) 02:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I saw your reversion of my edits to the Lockheed Martin page and your reasoning. And I'd like to talk it over before making any further edits. While it may be true that arms, defense are both related to the military, there are a couple reasons why I consider the link inappropriate and misplaced. First, those are TWO SEPARATE things in a list, among several other items. Linking them to a single page immediately strikes people as odd, at least it did for me. Second, I don't find your reasoning very convincing because every single item in that list is military-related. Arms and defense are. Sure, but so are aerospace and security, and tons of other things mentioned in that article. Heck, 80% of the article is probably about military but it'd raise a lot of eyebrows if we linked them all to military wouldn't it? Third, and this sums up the two issues already mentioned, arms and defense should be linked to their specific pages because lumping them together and point them to military just feels lazy and out of place. Pomodecon ( talk) 04:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm staying out of the discussion at Talk:Boeing#Discovery of door plug, mobile phones and fuselage detritus edit reversions. It appears that any replies I might make there will not improve the situation. And the other editors are covering things well enough there already, imo. Thanks -Fnlayson ( talk) 23:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
After doing a little more research, I see that you are correct that Boeing acquired the B-1 division from Rockwell International. The Air Force lists Boeing as the contractor for the B-1 (
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104500/b-1b-lancer/). But, at least to me, that is not obvious from the wikipedia page for the B-1. If someone (like me) follows the series of links for successor companies for Rockwell, they end up at RTX. Also, it is not clear from the Boeing page that Boeing is the current contractor for the B-1.
I'm wondering if in the Infobox, for Manufacturer, it would be better to list:
Original: Rockwell International
Current contractor: Boeing
I am going to publish that change. You clearly know more about this topic than I do. I'm trying to make the situation more clear to someone like myself without much background knowledge on this topic. If you disagree with that approach and revert it or take a different approach, I will acquiesce to your superior knowledge on this topic.
Mikebrand (
talk) 16:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, the contract by which Romania bought 54 M1A2R Abrams SEPV3 tanks is for 1.7 billion dollars, but the American congress was notified with an initial value higher than 2.53 billion dollars. What amount will still be used for this contract? Silo34 ( talk) 22:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Fnlayson, I saw this and it got me thinking -- should we update this section to use the phrase "mishap" instead of "accident", as that's the generally accepted terminology for the DoD? Is that something that would be worth rolling out more broadly across other U.S. military aircraft articles? I think you're more familiar with recent trends with our military aviation articles than I am, so figured I'd check in case this was something that's already been discussed before (saw your note at top of this page about discussing on article talk, but IMO this is potentially broader than just one specific article). ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Hi. You reverted my edit on the Hubble Telescope article as I quoted another WP article. Thanks for correcting me, I agree that is not a valid source. However, the actual edit is correct. OTA means Optical Tube Assembly in astronomy. It is only part of a telescope. See, for example, on these telescope manufacturer's sites; https://uk.telescope.com/Telescopes/Telescope-Optical-Tube-Assemblies/pc/1306/1323.uts https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/skywatcher-optical-tube-assemblies.html https://optcorp.com/collections/optical-tube-assemblies-ota https://www.firstlightoptics.com/optical-tube-assemblies.html https://www.celestron.com/collections/optical-tubes Thanks Point of Presence talk 23:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi there. I've conducted a GA review of the Sukhoi Su-57 and I've listed some of my reasons for why it doesn't qualify and should be delisted until further improvement. I would like to hear your feedback on the matter. Steve7c8 ( talk) 18:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.
If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 ( talk) 17:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and |
The WikiEagle |
The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter |
Volume I — Issue 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Announcements
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Members
New Members
Number of active members: 386.
Total number of members: 921.
Closed Discussions
|
Article Statistics This data reflects values from DMY.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New/Ongoing Discussions
On The Main Page Did you know...
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at
The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the
mailing list. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I notice your edit at Alabama. You may wish to comment at Talk:Texas#Ease of voting. Cheers. Magnolia677 ( talk) 20:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi there,
I’m a little confused about what I did incorrectly while updating the number of AC-130s in service, could you explain further? I only make good faith edits so this is the first time I believe an edit of mine has been reverted. Dynen ( talk) 21:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Take a look on the Polish Army article, it says they are going to buy them. They aren't just planning to, they are -- DBenner29 ( talk) 05:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)DBenner29
Given your activity at Falcon 9 and other SpaceX topics, I think you would be interested at this thread at Wikiproject Spaceflight. Regards, CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 03:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the B-61 capability does not seem to be in the F-35 article and others covered here: [1]. ErnestKrause ( talk) 15:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
MOS:PSEUDOHEAD says semicolon for bold markup is reserved for "description lists'. Jennica✿ / talk 01:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC) 01:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Wondered if you can add anything to this circular Discussion – In short the debate is over aircraft receiving individual entries into a table vs. a single entry (notability issue) as it seems to conflict with aircraft ID's - FOX 52 talk! 04:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Are you related to Kenneth Finlayson in any way? I've seen your edits quite a bit around military articles where I usually edit and came across his name several times for the articles he's written for Veritas. I wondered if there was a connection. Jasonkwe ( talk) ( contribs) 21:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Fnlayson, I am the editor (SpaceHist65) that made the structural changes to the NASA article in the last 4-6 weeks to move it back in direction of (hopefully) a good article (in part to fix the restructure template that had been applied to article). No one had constructively updated the article for content in something approaching years. Changes/fixes flagged today were intended to identify items that would assist in potential re-assessment. Reorder was a minor re-alignment in the Research area to elevate research to a level consistent with flight program and re-order to bin similar topics together. Happy to collaborate if there is interest. Hasn't been shown in the article or talk for quite some time. SpaceHist65 ( talk) 16:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 ( talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}} |
Donner60 ( talk) 05:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and |
Have a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! -Fnlayson ( talk) 15:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
BilCat ( talk) 05:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Fnlayson,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—
Moops ⋠
T⋡ 02:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
— Moops ⋠ T⋡ 02:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand why you tagged Deadline Hollywood as {{ better source needed}} [2]. Deadline is an industry trade journal and among the more reliable sources available for film information. It would seem to be more than enough to confirm the title "Transformers: A New Generation." -- 109.78.198.42 ( talk) 19:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
|reason=
if I am not sure a tag is specific enough to make my intentions clear. --
109.78.205.85 (
talk) 13:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello, multiple episodes of Buck Rogers in the 25th Century take place on fictional planets, with some of the featured planets including Aldebaran II, Vistula, Xantia, Mycos, Katar, Pendar, Philoctetes, and Arcadis, as detailed on the episode list. Earth is not the only planet to be featured in the series. So could I reinsert the TV shows set on fictional planets category? The Editor 155 ( talk) 17:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Hulk. It's always nice to meet a worthy opponent, who explains his or her reversions. Sorry if mine rubbed you the wrong way, I'm also inedible, it just happens. Anyway, "In pop culture" does explain more than "Features" would about what's currently in the section, no question. But do you think we still need that enormous chunk of nagging invisible text? Less importantly, do you want to help standardize Enola Gay with its own pop section? No rush on either question, just something to think about, maybe. InedibleHulk ( talk) 03:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I would like to thank you for your help in editing the Iron Maiden band’s Wikipedia page. In recent days there has been an act of vandalism and deletion of data without any discussion or reflection. This was done by an unregistered user, which has happened many times in the past. Since I don't have the proper permissions (I'm not an administrator) and I don't know many tools available on the Wiki, I need help in protecting the Band’s site from such incidents. Can the page be secured in a similar way as in the case of other thematic pages? I think it would be worth doing to prevent similar situations from happening again in the future. If you can, help solve this problem. Once again - many thanks! ~~ RALFFPL ( talk) 11:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi. This IPer ( /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/80.168.88.247) use to vandalise Iron Maiden site many times especially in the last days. ~~ RALFFPL ( talk) 17:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Regarding that IP editor who is changing the verb tense in the first sentence of Concorde, take note that the IP editor is edit-warring—has now made that change three times today. I'm not going to be at my PC for a while (it's lunchtime), but I will report the IP if it continues this afternoon unless you or someone else beats me to it. 1995hoo ( talk) 17:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi I just wanted to say that the Cessna 206 has appeared in love is in the air so why doesn’t have a part about it Cessna 402c ( talk) 06:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and |
Have a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you and yours. -Fnlayson ( talk) 02:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I saw your reversion of my edits to the Lockheed Martin page and your reasoning. And I'd like to talk it over before making any further edits. While it may be true that arms, defense are both related to the military, there are a couple reasons why I consider the link inappropriate and misplaced. First, those are TWO SEPARATE things in a list, among several other items. Linking them to a single page immediately strikes people as odd, at least it did for me. Second, I don't find your reasoning very convincing because every single item in that list is military-related. Arms and defense are. Sure, but so are aerospace and security, and tons of other things mentioned in that article. Heck, 80% of the article is probably about military but it'd raise a lot of eyebrows if we linked them all to military wouldn't it? Third, and this sums up the two issues already mentioned, arms and defense should be linked to their specific pages because lumping them together and point them to military just feels lazy and out of place. Pomodecon ( talk) 04:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm staying out of the discussion at Talk:Boeing#Discovery of door plug, mobile phones and fuselage detritus edit reversions. It appears that any replies I might make there will not improve the situation. And the other editors are covering things well enough there already, imo. Thanks -Fnlayson ( talk) 23:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
After doing a little more research, I see that you are correct that Boeing acquired the B-1 division from Rockwell International. The Air Force lists Boeing as the contractor for the B-1 (
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104500/b-1b-lancer/). But, at least to me, that is not obvious from the wikipedia page for the B-1. If someone (like me) follows the series of links for successor companies for Rockwell, they end up at RTX. Also, it is not clear from the Boeing page that Boeing is the current contractor for the B-1.
I'm wondering if in the Infobox, for Manufacturer, it would be better to list:
Original: Rockwell International
Current contractor: Boeing
I am going to publish that change. You clearly know more about this topic than I do. I'm trying to make the situation more clear to someone like myself without much background knowledge on this topic. If you disagree with that approach and revert it or take a different approach, I will acquiesce to your superior knowledge on this topic.
Mikebrand (
talk) 16:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, the contract by which Romania bought 54 M1A2R Abrams SEPV3 tanks is for 1.7 billion dollars, but the American congress was notified with an initial value higher than 2.53 billion dollars. What amount will still be used for this contract? Silo34 ( talk) 22:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Fnlayson, I saw this and it got me thinking -- should we update this section to use the phrase "mishap" instead of "accident", as that's the generally accepted terminology for the DoD? Is that something that would be worth rolling out more broadly across other U.S. military aircraft articles? I think you're more familiar with recent trends with our military aviation articles than I am, so figured I'd check in case this was something that's already been discussed before (saw your note at top of this page about discussing on article talk, but IMO this is potentially broader than just one specific article). ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)