User talk:Marc Lacoste

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello, Marc Lacoste, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


Proper Nouns[edit]

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


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


It is: "has acquired," NOT: "as acquired."


It is: "The agrement has to be validated," NOT: "The agrement have to be validated."

WikiDon 04:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't be such a dick, use some tact. English isn't Marc's first language, but his usage is much better than my French (for example). --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
hahaha :) ChrisRuvolo is right, and to add further mediocrity, I must say that I haven't a top-notch keyboard. Iteats lettrs somtimes. (in wich edit is the mistake?) --Marc Lacoste 14:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Marc Lacoste/gallery[edit]

Hi, please turn this gallery (or at least all the fair use images on it) into a list of links instead, or something like that, as soon as possible. Wikipedia policy doesn't allow fair use images to be displayed in userspace (see Wikipedia:Fair use#Fair use policy), and acording to this report you have 43 of them on that page. I'm working pretty much at random off that list, so don't feel singled out if others on the list with more images have not yet been notified. Eventualy I'll get around to them all (though hopefully I'm not the only one working on it). Thanks in advance. --Sherool (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

les 3 mousquetaires[edit]

Salut, je ne suis pas sur de ce que vous voulez dire au sujet de ces 3 mousquetaires. Si je me rappelle bien, j'ai fait un "upload" de ce photo, puis j'ai realise qu'il y avait toujours le bla-bla francais en bas. Donc j'ai fait un upload d'un autre ou, les 3 camarades sont plus individuels. C'est ce dernier qu'on voit, par example, a l'article de Henri Cochet. Cheers, Hayford Peirce 23:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

WikiProject Sports Car Racing[edit]

Due to your involvement in some Wiki pages that regard sports car racing of some sort, I would like to ask for you to look into the proposed WikiProject for Sports Car Racing. Any help you may have to offer to the project will be greatly appreciated. The359 03:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Broadband Internet access worldwide[edit]

Hi, You reverted Broadband Internet access worldwide. Can you give a reason for the revert please? Thanks. bobblewik 18:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bobblewik, because an anonymous user deleted many paragraphs, 'latvia' to the end. Sorry, it have eaten out your edits becaus of the simultaneity. I let you make the necessary corrections. --Marc Lacoste 18:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Aha. Thanks for the explanation. I have replaced my edit. Regards. bobblewik 18:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thumb vs Borderless[edit]

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

Carlos Ghosn Image[edit]

Hi Marc, I wanted to discuss Image:Carlos_Ghosn_(Dunod).jpg, because it may not be associated with the right article, and because of this may not be in fair use. The image is of the book <<Comment Carlos Ghosn a sauvé Nissan>>, but it is on the article for Carlos Ghosn. Fair use requires the image to be for an article about the book, not about the subject. I just wanted to let you know. --Guroadrunner 05:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Feel free to remove the license template if you found it usurpated, or add a reference to the book in the article to justify the image, perhaps. --Marc Lacoste 10:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you photograph these cameras yourself?[edit]

Greetings. I'm curious about Image:Olympus Trip 35.jpg and Image:Lubitel 2.jpg. Did you photograph these cameras yourself? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Image uploads[edit]

Hi. You seem to be uploading a lot of images which are being directly obtained from other online sources where the images are protected by copyright. Please be advised that this is not permissable as the Wikipedia projects are to provide free and open use and re-use of our articles and images and each time a non-free image is uploaded it becomes something we cannot make available. If you continue to upload non-free images you also risk being blocked. --AlisonW 14:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alison, as you noticed on my user page, "I specialized myself in uploading promotional material to be used under a fair use policy.". They were usable under a selectable template:promotional at their date of upload, template still in use at the time we speak, at my knowledge. I participate in Wikipedia Talk:Publicity photos if you want to explore this point further.
But threatening people without referring to a policy is impolite, and more so coming from an admin. Good evening. --Marc Lacoste 21:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Please check out the first criterion of WP:FUC: if a free alternative for a copyrighted promotional image could easily be created, Wikipedia policy precludes fair use. Before you add fair use images of cars, for instance, check to see if free alternatives exist at commons or flickr. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you check the Wikipedia:Publicity photos, which is a subset of FU? If your points are irrefutable (perhaps they are, I'm too small to judge), this would be changed. In the meantime - I shout it over my laptop writing that - can you please stop arguing with one person in particular who is of good faith, and thinks he obey the available template? thanks. --Marc Lacoste 21:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
This is basically why Wikipedia:Publicity photos is an essay and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria is policy. I'm sorry if it seems like people are pressing this issue too hard, you obviously have Wikipedia's best interests in mind when uploading these images. Please just consider when uploading a promotional image if a free alternative is available, or if some wikipedian can take a similar photograph for the article - in those cases, it is easier to refer to WP:RP. Thanks ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
There is always a free alternative possible of a product photo. So FU is always usurpated for promo images. This is my position on Wikipedia Talk:Publicity photos. So I would prefer either ban promo photos totally, or accept those as non-free images and live with that. But being in-between like that adds penibility when you have to justify yourself every five minutes, whereas nobody were against you during one year. --Marc Lacoste 22:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
There are times when a free alternative cannot be created because no copies of the product exist or when the product is inaccessible to the public. In those cases fair use is our best friend. In other cases, I agree with you that there are sometimes gray areas, this is why it is important to always err on the side of caution, even if that means not using a copyrighted image. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree with this position. But the present templates and essay isn't that much precise. I'll propose and addition. --Marc Lacoste 06:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Marc. We're also holding a replaceability discussion about another image you uploaded, Image:Nikkor lenses.jpg. --RobthTalk 22:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Camera timeline templates missing[edit]

I see you have been instrumental in creating a lot of templates. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Photography#Camera_timeline_templates_missing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Windows RT Edit War (sigh)[edit]

Please contribute to the poll on Talk:Windows RT. (You are being asked because you commented on Android.) Tuntable (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


Aircraft fuel economy[edit]

Hello, Marc. I have moved our discussion on this topic from my personal talk page to Talk:Fuel economy in aircraft since I think other authors of that article should be aware of the discussion and participate. Best regards, Coastwise (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Airbus A350 prototype roll out.jpg[edit]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Bicycle gearing[edit]

Thanks for tidying up the table of gear ranges etc. Murray Langton (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

glad you find it useful ! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Good work[edit]

Thanks for creating those new articles. Once you're finished with your initial work on each page, please add the new articles to Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft) (WP:AIRNEW) within a day or so of creating them, as this will help to inform other aircraft editors about the new articles. If you need any assistance adding these to that pagex feel free to ask. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


Diamond Dart 450[edit]

Hi, welcome to wikipedia: Aviation! Please feel free to use the resources at the wikipedia Aviation pages, in particular at Template:WPAVIATION creator to create/improve your articles. Well done and thank you.--Petebutt (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Length in Variants|[edit]

The length is informative, but the numbers are included in the tables describing the variants. I kept the qualitative length change in the revision, along with the numbers of seat rows added. I also did some needed grammatical editing. Please discuss before reverting again. Scotteaton92 (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Douglas DC-8[edit]

Please dont edit war on the Douglas DC-8 article, your change was challenged and you were asked to use the talk page but you decided to add the information again, please dont without a consensus, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

You are close to WP:3RR. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Why are you removing cited data from the article and replacing it with more out of date information?Nigel Ish (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Page move requests[edit]

Marc, I've answered your post on my talk page. Btw, Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions isn't the correct place to post a non-controversial technical request. That is at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Howr, I will contest the move, so the best thing to do is post a move discussion on the article's talk page per WP:RM. I am actually a Page Mover now, so I can perform the move once there's a consensus to do so. - BilCat (talk) 06:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

While I don't mind your moving the discussion from my talk page to the article's, I've learned the hard way to ask first. Some editors don't like that.

Also, I realize we've had some disagreements, but I do believe that you're a good editor. You are doing good work on business aircraft and airliners, and the help with the workload is much appreciated. Please don't let any small disagreements discourage you from contributing. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Lead image changes[edit]

I noticethat you only left three or four hours before you changed the main image at Britten-Norman Islander, you really need to leave it a lot longer to allow others to commment, seven days is the norm unless you get overwhelming support before that. I also removed your "interesting pictures" post from the Islander talk page, the talk page is not for dumping loads of images, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed because the current one is bad enough compared to the new one that I doesn't expect anyone to support it, so I thought if I changed it nobody would resent it, and it's always possible to revert it anyways. For the list of pictures, the point is to have a curated list instead of a general link to the hundreds of pages in commons, often uninteresting, to use to illustrate a particular point in the article, so I put this in the talk page. It is the point of the talk page, isn't it? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
No the talk page is for comments to improve the article not for dumping loads of images. Nothing wrong with you creating better pages in commons. MilborneOne (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016[edit]

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Ahunt (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Boeing 757 into Middle of the market. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I've added template:copied to both talk pages, is it OK for you? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, thats perfect. Keep in mind though for the future that while the template is optional, the edit summary is mandatory. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Diannaa: it was summarised as moved to Middle of the market --Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The most important piece is missing: an attribution edit summary at the destination article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Diamond Dart 450 first flight.jpg[edit]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Safiel (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Marc Lacoste. You have new messages at Talk:Airbus A320 family/GA2.
Message added 20:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The GA Nom-editor has only edited this article once - I am just trying to make sure that there are other editors/major contributors who are willing to work with me on this GA Review. Shearonink (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Operators articles[edit]

Thanks for producing the List of Beechcraft King Air operators article but just one point it might be best if we point back to the original articles in the talk so the attribution of who contributed can be kept, they are a number of templates for the talk page have a look at Template:Copied. MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Airbus A320 family[edit]

Virgin America A320 cabin.jpg Congratulations, it's a...
...Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

A cupcake for you![edit]

Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg Thank you for stepping in and helping to promote Airbus A320 family to GA Status while I was busy over the last week. It is very much appreciated and this cake is for you to enjoy for your hardworking. After all, every one needs some cake after some hard work ;) Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
And while i'm at it, I might as well award you this too. Thanks again! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Boeing 797[edit]

Boeing 797 has now been created by a new user. Too early? - BilCat (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed it's just hudvar-hazy (logical) nickname. I'll propose a merge with MOM. Thanks for noticing! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


I have restored the dab again, per guidelines. Edit summaries do not allow for long drawn out conversations, so I could not get any more specific than the policies written specifically for DABS. WP:DDD explicitly says don't include references or external links, in bold letters with a big red X. MOS:DAB says Never include external links, either as entries or in descriptions. Disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia articles, not the World-Wide Web. To note URLs that might be helpful in the future, include them on the talk page.. The entire idea behind a DAB is to disambiguate Wikipedia. Entries that are not on Wikipedia and not mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia should not be included on a DAB. If the magazine is indeed listed elsewhere, it should be a redlink followed by a wikilink to the article that discusses it. DABs should not have references as the content in the DAB should be covered in the linked article. Think of it as a navigation page. As far as placing the {{dab}}, the bottom appears to be the most widely accepted place and is generally where the template should go. I haven objections to the addition of the magazine provided it is discussed in another article (not a list) on Wikipedia and is appropriately Wikilinked to that. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

To help other to correct their edits, it's best to copy the specific, relevant policy (here : "Don't include references or external links, see WP:DDD"). Thanks for the explanation though.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Marc Lacoste It's a reasonable expectation that users (particularly experienced ones) will read the specific policy given. DDD outlines in 5 short, simple and direct explanations. I see you've amended the DAB yet again, turning it into an article. Can you please stop and ask on the talk and reach a consensus before removing it as a DAB? Thanks. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 09:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
but your edit summary wasn't specifying which one of the 5, so how could I corrected that? Sorry I mangled the { { dab } } in my edit, I replaced it.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Comac C919[edit]

Was your comment at WP:ITNC in support of it being posted. This should be clearly indicated. Before the article is linked from the main page, that orange maintenance tag will need to go. This means that the issues indicated need to be resolved. Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

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

ITN recognition for Comac C919[edit]

Gnome globe current event.svgOn 6 May 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Comac C919, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Mjroots (talk) 09:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Comac C919 archive links[edit]

I have made several hundred of these edits, you are the only individual that has reverted the changes, and I have had literally dozens of people thanking me for doing it. The problem with waiting for a link to go dead is that it may never be recoverable. It's very sad that you think that's a good way of dealing with linkrot. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It's also odd, since (for example) current ref 40 has been "archived" yet the original URL is just fine. Perhaps you should delete the archiveurl for consistency. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I added the ref 40 "archive" (just a copy) since the original is behind a paywall.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm very sensitive over link rot, but they are already in, not lost, having a comment don't help. Perhaps one day will disappear as the alexandria library. I'm working hard on those articles to have easy to read references to facilitate verifiability, and having huge refs isn't helping.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Well like I say, you're the only person to make a fuss over this, please see guidance at WP:LINKROT as well, you may be curating the article right now, but you may not be doing so in the future. My solution (and the one recommended by LINKROT) makes the need for you or anyone to go looking. I urge you to reconsider. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Archive-urls are great when the original ref is dead, but what is the added value of polluting a live ref? The bot archiving a page does a great job, but you're just adding an url, not archiving pages yourself?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Archive URLs are helpful full stop. If a link goes dead, there is a chance that it may never be recovered, so the IABot gets archives of the pages and adds the archiveurl. I don't understand why you would think that's a bad thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
They aren't useful before the original url is dead. I don't understand why it would be better than putting the archive-url when it's dead while before that it adds noise. (I'm interested in understanding your POV. I'm sure we are both intelligent individuals, and are only restrained by the backfire effect).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't see it as adding noise, and I see it as extremely convenient, particularly in articles with possibly hundreds of links, it saves the effort of going to and locating a suitably live archive. You are unique, in that you have twice reverted the addition of useful encyclopedic information because you perceive it inconveniences you personally. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not personal, avoiding noise is useful. It could be useful when the links will be dead, but not yet.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Well it clearly is personal as not one other editor has reverted my edits, moreover dozens have thanked me. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I do understand your will to avoid link rot. Do you understand my will to lower noise in articles?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

No, that doesn't make any sense, because that's giving consideration to editors only, not our readers who would be glad to have linkrot-protected pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
not only the editor (which should also be considered), but also the reader, for each ref, passing from
[url article] publisher/author, date
[url article] publisher/author, date. [archive-url Archived] from the original on date.
The reader would be glad to have linkrot-protected urls when the original is rotten, before it gives nothing but noise (and with much slower loading times) .--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Load times are barely affected, the reader will be happier to learn that links of this nature are preserved, and not disappointed when he discovers dead links. This way we're minimising the likelihood of dead links being exposed to our readers. Not all editors check the status of all links on all articles every day to see if they've gone dead, after a:::: Load times on are very long, and a casual reader will click it almost everytime. Links aren't preserved by adding comments in a wikipedia ref template, they are preserved by the bot. If nobody notifies a dead link, the url will never be corrected. Don't underestimate the reader willingness to become a contributor, it's the strong point of wikipedia.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)ll. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I thought you meant load times of Wikipedia pages. In any case, this is belt and braces. If you don't like it on your article, that's fine, but it's being rolled out across the encyclopedia via a bot, I'm manually updating all the items that appear on the mainpage. Your article is and appears that it will remain to be the only one that has not been updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
It's certainly not my article. Rolling a bot across wikipedia without addressing remarks can be a source of frictions. I understood your will. You never tried to understand my concern.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I understood your concern, I just didn't agree with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You disagree lowering noise have any interest?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

But it isn't noise to the reader, and it's of benefit should any of the billions of links go dead and you not be there to manually fix them up with an archive link. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
There is noise for the reader : refs are longer and there is another link to confuse. If a link goes dead, the good thing to do is to retrieve the linked text, getting to is a worst case scenario. I would have nothing but praise for your bot if it was only updating refs when the link was 404, but before that it's presumptuous.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
We shouldn't expect our readers to trawl or any other historical records to find where a dead link has gone, you can't update billions of links a day which may have gone dead since you last looked. It's a huge stretch to think a "longer ref" means "noise" for the readers, you should credit them with a reasonable level of intelligence. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Noise is unnecessary reading and time to select a correct link or to wait loading times, nothing to do with their intelligence.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I think the objective benefits far outweigh your perceived cost. Don't be surprised to have to have this conversation many more times as many more of the articles you curate are treated similarly. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree there are benefits to provide archive-urls before they are needed. But if you continue to say "your perceived cost", you maintain that you don't understand noise is detrimental for the reader. Threatening a commentator isn't a good way for you to convince others of your goodwill.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not trying to convince you of anything any longer. Your opinion does not outweigh the objective benefit. As I said, don't be surprised to see this happening all over the articles you curate. You'll have plenty of opportunity to convince other editors of your analysis. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
"Your opinion" again. You're not even trying to understand.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure you're reading my responses. As I sid above "I understood your concerns, I just didn't agree with it". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
You never acknowledged noise is a problem for the reader--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
More detailed references does not equal "noise". That is why I don't agree with you. I've said that a couple of times. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Not explicitly, thanks for clarifying you don't think details can be noise. Do you agree noise can be detrimental?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
It depends what you mean by "noise" of course. I don't consider enhanced reference formats to be "noisy". If you added a bunch of random characters, yes, that's noisy and not good. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
random is useless, superfluous is noisy--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
That's an unusual definition of "noise". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand you think about Noise (signal processing) while I was talking about Communication noise--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't talk about additional useful information being "noise". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I am talking about excessive information obfuscating the original message.Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
But it doesn't, it's not excessive, it's saying different things, our readers can usually speak English and understand how to read these things. It's not "noise" at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
when the link is live, it has no utility whatsoever until the link is down--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I think we're done here, we're going round in circles. I'm saying that it's better to be safe than sorry, you're suggesting that dead links only need to be addressed once they go dead, and there are billions of links over Wikipedia which could do this each and every day. I'm not going to try to convince you of anything more in this regard, it's clearly a waste of time, you will see these archived links added across Wikipedia in due course, and even this article which you seem to be particularly custodial of, will be fixed again. And you can have this same conversation with the bot or whoever else runs the legitimate and article-improving script over it. Bon chance. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
there was any discussion over this bot? could you point me towards? note that in the french wikipedia, there is an automatic tiny [archive] with every new ref link, with instant archiving on wikiwix at the time of the link addition (without excessive "archived from the original on DD-MM-YYYY"), kinda neat. This would render this bot a bit useless.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Don't know, you can find that out for yourself I guess. If you have a better solution, propose it, but your continual claims of "noise" and "excessive" text is now too much for me. Take it up with someone else. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
so you've never talk about this bot with anyone?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
It's hosted by WMF, it's recommended for use. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
And it's linked from the history page of around 5.402 million articles. If that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Try to use the dead-url=y if the link is really dead or dead-url=n if not. This reorders the links listed in the cite to match. See documentation at {{Cite web}} for details. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing styles[edit]

There is no requirement whatsoever to make a whole heap of pissant little changes when editing a Wikipedia article. YSSYguy (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

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

May 2017[edit]

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

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Marc Lacoste (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

Answering my request, @Bbb23: blocked both, but I didn't break WP:3RR : I reverted three times and stopped there to not breach the rule. Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The 3RR rule is an outside limit not an allowance. The bottom line is that you were edit warring and were correctly blocked. Take further editorial disputes to the article talk page. In the event of future edit warring you are likely to be blocked for a longer period whether or not you technically breach 3RR. Just Chilling (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

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

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Scaled Composites Stratolaunch.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Scaled Composites Stratolaunch.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. BilCat (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

How about....[edit], just this once, accept that someone else knows what the fuck he is talking about and that you are wrong. I have read two articles today that state that Norwegian has already been operating 738s across the Atlantic, and that the MAX 8s will gradually replace them and offer more flexibility with respect to payload etc. YSSYguy (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Access Dates in Citations[edit]

Why have you removed the access dates from citations (see here [1])? The access date helps find the most suitable archive source if the link becomes dead. Scotteaton92 (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

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

License tagging for File:LMS-9 rendering.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:LMS-9 rendering.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017[edit]

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at ACROSS Project, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. David.moreno72 11:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. David.moreno72 11:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I urge you to apply the collaborate guideline : when you see a fellow editor trying to add referenced, pertinent information, help him to place it without breaking disamb pages. I don't edit those regularly so you're certainly better at that. Show me how, it's better than knocking my fingers. the encyclopedia is best improved through collaboration and consensus, not through combat and capitulation. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Marc, if you still think the Advanced Cockpit for Reduction Of Stress and Workload is worthy of an article, use a different form of the name or add something in parenthesis, such as "ACROSS (aviation)". --Finlayson (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of my Embraer Phenom 100 pic[edit]

Marc, I am puzzled by your removal of a high quality, entirely relevant, picture that surely enhances the article. The article had five pics, as follows: A lead that is in-flight and blurry, a cabin view, a very poor in-flight pic, a front view and a cockpit view. Please explain how a very high quality side view, that did not exist on the article and that shows the aircraft in detail, needed removing. I have been adding pics since 2003 and would never add a pic that did not enhance the article. I have put up the pic on the right of this text. Best, Adrian, Bristol, England Arpingstone (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Adrian, last year I put some work to have the article well referenced and well illustrated. To pick good illustrations, I went through the 123 pics in commons to select those which depicted best its features : general configuration in the lead pic, passenger cabin giving an idea of its size and accommodation, below view showing the specific straight wing not shared with the larger, faster swept wing phenom 300 (and exposed retracted wheels), a symmetric front view on ramp showing its attitude on land and both engine mounting, and a cockpit view to give an idea of the avionics. "Relevant" isn't only "showing the article subject", it should also show features not present in other pictures, and nothing really new was added by yours. Coming up with an image description of a specific feature of the subject is a good test for relevance. Even if you really want a side view a bit from behind on ramp, I think there would be better 3/4 rear views, with the craft more distinct from the background, or if only side on ramp is the objective, the next one is even on a very simple background :
"High quality" isn't so much for the number of pixels, but for the quality of the depiction. For your picture, while there is certainly many pixels, the depiction isn't that great : the subject is a bit from behind, the background is busy with other aircraft emerging from the phenom silhouette. Simple images, with a clean background, are best for an encyclopedia. I don't find the lead pic is blurry though, and inflight is recommended. The 2d inflight pic res is low indeed, but it's the best pic I found of the straight wing, while this is similar and high res but not sharp and dull light. That said, if you really want your pic in the article I won't edit war over it. Regards, --Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your very detailed reply. I accept all you say and I will not reinsert the picture. Best Arpingstone (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your work, and while I'm harsh on this subject, I do appreciate your pictures and contributions. Bye! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

ACROSS Project[edit]

Stop icon Please stop adding irrelevant information to the ACROSS Project page. The page is about a Treelogic R&D Project, nothing to do with the Advanced Cockpit for Reduction Of Stress and Workload project. If you wish to create a page about the Advanced Cockpit for Reduction Of Stress and Workload project may I highly recommend that you create a draft and submit it to WP:AFC . If you are having trouble on deciding on a title, may I recommend that you read WP:ATDAB. Any further unwarranted edits to the ACROSS Project page will be referred to ANI as you have already received a number of warnings. Thank you David.moreno72 11:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Raptor rocket engine[edit]

Hi Marc. I just reverted some updated specifications you added to the Raptor (rocket engine family) article, but only because they lost some important historical information. You had added that into a section on the older IAC 2016 designs, which were approx. 3x as large; so should of course keep the old specs.

Just add that info in the section above that, on the 2017 engine designs. I know they are all for a much smaller engine now, but haven't looked at the specs in detail in any source.

Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello @N2e:, thanks for explaining your revert, that's very civil. I saw there is a section 2.2 IAC 2016 proposed designs but I updated the 3.2 Comparison to other engine designs table, which isn't about the 2016 design but about comparing the raptor with others, and seemed outdated when I saw it : the table isn't labelled "Comparison to other engine designs in 2016", but seems for the _current_ design. It was already the 2016 3.5 MN design, not the previous 8.2 MN one, and became 1.9MN in 2017. Would you consider putting it back? Thanks --Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, thanks much. Your response is even more civil! ... since it appears by my comment that I did not grok that you were updating the comparison table. So that part of my comment was unfounded in reality. Very sorry about that. I guess I misread things and did not take enough time to get it right.
Agree with you that the table should have the "main" or "current" or whatever Raptor in it; not the one that was their design a year ago, when they (apparently) didn't have enough self-funded money to build the much larger sapcecraft and then take the time or expend the money do a second scaling-up turn on the engine dev program to get to the 3x larger Raptor either.
Would love to have your help on that engine article to get the data right, and also to perhaps explicate a bit of goodness in prose in that section to more fully describe the "Raptor 2017" version they released a few specs on last week. ... and in particular the goodness of how the 8.2 MN design became the 3.5 MN design and, now, the 1.9 MN design. I would likely get the engine stuff sorted in the next few weeks, but my day job is killing me and I'm kinda full-up on the wiki-side just trying to get the new LV article sorted against the older LV design article, and all done in the context of the overall SpaceX mars architecture article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Hey Marc. I finally had the time to get over there and make an attempt at updating the article with your new numbers in a way that did not lose the info on the older designs (that are, now, not planned to be built) and also has correct citations for the new info. See what you think. N2e (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, that's nice. Why leaving the not to be built 2016 design?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Good question. It's arguable whether it is table-worthy there. But, I think, pretty compelling that it is article-worthy somewhere in that article.
Why? Simply because it is such a notable major engine design, being developed for some period of time during 2015 to 2017, and has many sources in reliable secondary source media. Moreover, Musk has been quite clear that he's going with the "smaller" BFR (rocket) because of economic drivers and he is on record as saying that even the larger ITS launch vehicle design from last year is not as large as he thinks later Mars vehicles will be. Thus, it reasonably likely that this notable design from 2016 or so may come back and be developed later. So, no reason to remove from the encyclopedia. That's my thinking on it anyway. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I added a line of context on several of the other engines in that table that were designs that were never flown, and at least one other, never built. So I think that staged-combustion rocket engines are still so relatively rare, especially the full-flow staged combustion engines like Raptor, that even the designs probably warrant being in that table for comparison, when they were serious designs by capable enterprises and under development for some time; each with good sources. YMMV. N2e (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Aircraft specs[edit]

Nice article on the Alice mark, but when you use the specs template be aware that attributes with more than two units must be input in the unit system selected or you get the units jumbled and in the wrong format. Thanks--Petebutt (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation @Petebutt: but your change lost the speeds and the power is 280kW total, not 3×280kW, so I reverted but I'm sure it's possible to improve. I don't understand what is jumbled?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
No problem, but the engine parameters are for each engine not the total so enter the power of one engine and give the number of engines. You selected met but enterred speeds in knots , which causes the units to come out in the wrong sequence.--Petebutt (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

"Link suppression"[edit]

Marc, could you take a look at this edit to Igor Sikorsky, and see if there's a legitimate reason that this entry should be removed? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello @BilCat:, fr:ESTACA (established 1925) was attended by Igor Alexis Sikorsky (1901-1970) : Igor Sikorsky's cousin. Legitimate edit for a plausible error I guess.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI: Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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

Airbus A340[edit]

Hello Marc! It's BruzerFox. I just wanted to clarify what I was doing on the article, Airbus A340. You were using the "ref name" tag in a way it was not intended to be used. A "ref name" tag must be linked to an inline citation that also defines an identical ref name. What you did instead was make a ref name that did not direct to an inline citation with a "ref name" field, but instead closely matched something in the further reading/bibliography section of the references. Unfortunately, that breaks the reference tag, which was the problem I was trying to fix. I understand what you were trying to do, but readers cannot see the ref name in the inline citation because clicking on it won't take them where you want it to. Always make sure an inline citation is directly linked to the intended source by doing essentially what I did after you. Let me know if you have any further questions. BruzerFox 09:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, easy to fix.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


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

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

Payload vs range diagrams on aircraft type articles[edit]

Hi Marc: I have started a discussion on this here. Please join the discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Marc Lacoste. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

As a courtesy to other editors reading through page histories, when you add new content in an edit, please title the edit summary appropriately and do not label them as undoing the previous editor’s work. In Special:Diff/814393066, MrBill3 had reverted unsourced additions in contradiction with cited sources. Adding new sources as you did with the following (valuable) Special:Diff/814525777 is not in contradiction with that. Thank you. Ariadacapo (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Piper Malibu and speed records[edit]

On the one hand finding what you found about the records was a great find. It's certainly something I looked for it and couldn't find and was stymied in my searches of the actual record books to verify with FIA what the record was or is?

On the other hand I still have serious problems with the Notions of 395 miles an hour and 430 some miles an hour being possible in a Piper Malibu. Did you google the tail number? First off there's three records they talk about. The first one at 259 miles an hour seems at least reasonable although it is above what the factory claims as top speed. Although I noticed on this page they don't include the base model Malibu in the performance data I have looked up pilot handbook and I could imagine that speed being possible with some kind of wind assist and considering they were flying from west to east with the prevailing westerlies and possibly reaching higher winds Aloft as soon as possible they could do that. It would have to be flying at over 20,000 ft. One of the points I was making was the fact that that airplane crashed later that same here when the pilot got disoriented in a thunderstorm lost control of the plane into a dive and rip the Wings off of it. The NTSB report says the IAS (indicated air speed) was 230mph I read two different accounts of the crash including the NTSB report which doesn't say a single thing about the airplane being modified at all. That airplane was a stock Piper Malibu. For some reason the NTSB report doesn't give a manufacturer's date but since it is a Malibu it has to be somewhere between 1982 and 1987. In 1998 they manufactured the Mirage which had different engines. The Malibu had the least powerful engines of the entire line of the pa-46 type. There is no way in hell an unmodified Piper Malibu reaches those kind of speeds. In fact at 435 miles an hour that'd be a plane you put in the unlimited class at the Reno Air Races up against the Mustangs Bearcats corsairs and the like.

I even had a guy on the phone a couple of hours ago Who belongs to the Malibu Mirage flyers and Owners Association. He was a little less forthcoming then it could have been because for some reason he got suspicious of my motives for asking these questions and having so much information about the plane and the and the crash. He thought I was a lawyer or representing someone else but he had in the beginning said that he had run in the high 300 in his plane with a strong Tailwind this year but then he admitted that it was a late model turboprop version of the plane that has 100 miles an hour more max Cruise speed. She started to say well if you had enough Tailwind you could get above 400 but he stopped and thought about it and thought no maybe not that's just too high a difference between the never exceed speeds and any conditions are altitudes that you could get to 435 miles an hour. I still think it's somebody's simple conversion error and what they mean is kilometers per hour knot in miles per hour.

I'm going to email another guy at that club and see if I can get him to address what was printed in that 1992 issue and where they may have gotten that information. But I'm telling you, the kind of Tailwind that would be necessary for 395 miles an hour and 435 miles an hour it's just virtually impossible to get on an aircraft that'll come apart at 230-240 miles an hour indicated airspeed. The actual airspeed indicator on the airplane has a red line at 198 knots which is 227 miles per hour. With a service ceiling of 25000 feet you couldn't get it into the jet stream to get a hundred not Tailwind or maybe even more. It almost all aircraft the altitude at which you can go the fastest is always somewhat less than the absolute ceiling of the aircraft. It's advertised top speeds are probably around 20,000 feet. The end of the green area on the airspeed indicator is at 198 miles per hour. Above that You are yellow and then you are red at 230. I'm going to try to do a calculation on what ground speed would be at 230 miles an hour indicated AirSpeed at 25000 feet but I can tell you it's going to be 100 to maybe as much as a 180 miles an hour short 435 miles an hour. I want to make sure you understand what indicated AirSpeed is and what never exceed limits are and you should Google that tail number and find out just how it came apart just a few months after this single place claims they set speed records a couple of them were only 3 days apart. The NTSB report indicates plane literally came apart and the wreckage was strewn over four miles. The wings were literally miles from the fuselage. It didn't break up near the ground it broke up at 10 or 11 thousand feet at what was probably 232 to 50 miles an hour indicated airspeed. Okay now I feel like I'm beating a dead horse but we are in the talk section. There is a source what's on the page. Parts Source is from a 25 year old publication from flying Club. I wouldn't exactly call it reliable. No, I wouldn't call it reliable at all. In my conversation with the club member he wouldn't even entertain the idea of trying to verify what was in that month's issue. As I told him I only called their phone number because I was out of options. I had a feeling I was going to meet a bit of resistance and arrogance and that's exactly what I found. The people that own these planes are investor class all the way and when I started talking about never exceed limits and the fact that plane had crashed months later I think he really thought I was mining information for some kind of lawsuit or something. He got irritable and suspicious and stopped even attempting to answer questions that I had reasoned out in advance. But a single source still has to obey the laws of physics. If it's not possible I can't be fact. What's the article says the records we're certified and one of the questions I have is just how much of a Tailwind would they even accept in a record-setting run of a civilian aircraft. I doubt they would have found 150 not Tailwind acceptable for a record. None of this makes any sense. In an aircraft at all times it's actually Sir Isaac Newton in the pilot seat.

I've been doing correction editing at Wikipedia for a long time. There are a couple of topics that I'm a little finicky about. One is motorcycles from the 70s and 80s and the other is flying. I grew up around here pair bases my father was a carrier fighter & dive bomber pilot. I can see his 1953 issued G1 leather flight jacket would be Associated patches from where I sit because I'm in the process of selling it. But on another topic says well I use Wikipedia as an information source and Wikipedia's suffering an image problem.

People are increasingly scoffing when you use Wikipedia as a source for a fact or base of an opinion and I find myself all the time trying to explain how Wikipedia works and how it works to self-correct. Credibility has deteriorated in recent years fairly or unfairly. And I think fairly and I think this is an example of clinging too hard to something that doesn't need to be in the article, something that is extreem and outlandish on its face. It's the kind of thing that needs a very credible Source if not a multiple source. World flying records are a big deal and we shouldn't be accepting the word of a single article in a flying Club Magazine as credible proof that this belongs in an article in an airplane that has a stock cruising speed of 170 190 miles an hour. If you look at the list of the records on that page the 395 and 437 numbers are extreme outliers. This was not a modified airplane. If it was it would have been mentioned in the NTSB report. Airframe modifications in and engine modifications would have been noted by NTSB. And they would have been considered as a possible cause of the crash because the cause was structural failure. Realistically there's no amount of modifications that would explain that kind of speed. The only possible explanation would be extreme Tailwind and I've already outlined the problems with that theory.There is a mistake here. I don't attribute it to somebody purposely trying to falsify data to satisfy the egos of Piper Malibu owners, I'd rather attributed to a mistake. If it's a mistake it doesn't belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackhammer111 (talkcontribs) 11:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your question is too long to read entirely, so I'll try to guess. Wikipedia is not bad per se, if it displays something seemingly inaccurate with a ref, the ref seems inaccurate and have to be checked, not removed from wikipedia. Of course a piston PA-46 advertised cruise is 213 kn (245 mph), so Mach 0.633 (381 kn; 439 mph) at FL250 seems wild, but jet streams could reach 275 mph (239 kn), so maybe. That said, this kind of one-off speed records seems WP:TRIVIA to me, showing more exceptional conditions than aircraft capabilities. I smiled when I saw Henri Pescarolo's name, though, a Le Mans mainstay chasing GA records :) Wikipedia editors should not make first hand reporting though, too close to WP:OR. But having some discernment is important though, I was in a similar position for Talk:Airbus_A350_XWB#900ULR_range?, the template:dubious could be used also, as is Template:Importance inline. Cheers, --Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC) Also, please prefer knots for airspeeds, thanks.

Proposed deletion of BBAM[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article BBAM has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No notability shown - please provide sources to show WHY this company is significant

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

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


Wikiwings2.png Wikiwings
Awarded for all your all your sterling work on CSeries dumping petition by Boeing. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (List of Pilatus PC-12 operators) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating List of Pilatus PC-12 operators, Marc Lacoste!

Wikipedia editor Babymissfortune just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for taking the time creating this page.

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

Learn more about page curation.

Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 15:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve DieselJet[edit]

Hi, I'm Icewhiz. Marc Lacoste, thanks for creating DieselJet!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This needs better independent sourcing. I don't see much in my BEFORE.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

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

Help needet for Pilatus PC-24[edit]

Dear, Marc You worked on Pilatus Aircraft Pages, also in the one about the PC-24. That is why I am asking you. Yesterday i updated, because of HB-VSC, the number of built PC-24 from 4 to 5. The reference to the FOCA List was already there. But some on people undo my Update all the time, also when i used Avia News from 24 heuers or add the link to the FOCA registera second time.[2]. (Use PC24 in the field ICAO Aircraft Type. And you can See all 5reg.of the so gar built and flown PC-24) Can you Help? Thank you. (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

T900 and T901 articles[edit]

Marc, do you have any plans to create articles for the ATEC T900 and while General Electric T901 engines? I think there is enough information already in the Advanced Affordable Turbine Engine and Advanced Turbine Engine Company articles to create articles. I've been considering creating drafts at Draft:ATEC T900 and Draft:General Electric T901 to work on them at a slower pace, but I didn't want to duplicate your efforts if you already had offline drafts. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Beluga XL[edit]

Marc, it still needs fixing. Best. Superp (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

10,000h is more than 8000 hours--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:TechnifyMotorsLogo.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:TechnifyMotorsLogo.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Skylab reports[edit]

Hi! I'm in the midst of sorting out what happened on Skylab 4, particularly with respect to a rumored Skylab mutiny which, so far, I haven't been able to find any mention of before Cooper 1976. I'm keen to find lengthy, semi-detailed summaries of the mission(s) such as the October 1974 National Geographic article, including details about the scheduling difficulties the Skylab 4 crew had. I saw you offered access to AWST at WP:SHARED, and I think they might have some interesting articles including one from March 18, 1974 and surely others that round-up information. Any help on this front is much appreciated. -- ke4roh (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Boeing-Embraer joint venture[edit]

In your edit of Boeing-Embraer joint venture, Thank you for mentioning and linking the two sources in the edit summary. For future use, please note the desired wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia

When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. --S Philbrick(Talk) 10:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

French translation help[edit]

Marc, I reverted this edit as being incorrect. Google Translator confirms that "dolphin" in French is dauphin, as well as the French term for an heir apparent (crown prince). Do you know of any sources that clarify which meaning Aérospatiale intended with the name? I know the US Coast Guard version is named "Dolphin, but that's not necessarily proof. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any source immediately available, but dauphin meaning crown prince is a very rare use outside historical stories (especially in a country where kings have their heads cut off), I can't think Aérospatiale meant anything else than the seagoing mammal, especially given the aircraft likeness. Cheers!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Dolphin seemed obvious to me to. You don't have to go to any extra effort to find a source. - BilCat (talk) 07:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


Marc, could you take a look at the Daher article? Some recent additions are written in poor English, apparently by a French speaker, and I'm not sure what they mean. For example, "two key players in the supply of equipment for nuclear islands." Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

From looking at fr:Daher, it appears the IP users copied the history section of that article, and machine-translated it. - BilCat (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Proposed deletion of List of current production certified light aircraft[edit]


The article List of current production certified light aircraft has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not an aircraft buying guide or comparison website

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

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

Diamond DART 280 MTOW[edit]

Bonjour, Il y a une erreur de conversion dans l'article de Flight Global. Soit la masse de 1350 kg est correcte et cela fait ≈2980 lb soit la masse de 2500 lb est correcte et cela fait ≈1135 kg. Loran O (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

je ne sais pas quelle est la bonne masse.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Dans ce cas, faites des recherches avant de faire des annulations sauvages ;-). Si on considère la masse du Robinson R44 qui est de 2500 lb, on peut supposer que c'est la conversion en kilo qui est fausse. Loran O (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Pas une annulation sauvage: le texte devenait en contradiction avec la ref. Il y a 2 solutions: soit supprimer le passage incohérent, soit trouver une source cohérente pour le MTOW, mais choisir celle qui nous semble correcte c'est du WP:OR--Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Garder une information et sa source dans un article WP alors qu'il est démontré qu'elle est fausse, c'est aussi du WP:OR... Loran O (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Ben non, à ce moment là je n'étais pas informé de l'incohérence.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Merci de l'observation de l'incohérence, au fait !--Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
De rien. Et pour vous dire franchement, je ne m'en suis rendu compte qu'après votre première annulation. Loran O (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The problem appears to have been an error with the specs template - now fixedNigel Ish (talk) 09:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
More a flightglobal conversion mistake.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Je pense que cet article devrait mettre tout le monde d'accord. Loran O (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Une ref en anglais sur wikipedia en c'est mieux mais ça ira.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

More French help[edit]

Hi Marc, could you take a look at Patrouille de France? Now-banned User:OJOM, a French speaker with limited English skills, made a number of edits to the article, leaving the English quite mangled in places. The fourth paragraph in the Lead is especially confusing. Thanks for whatever you can do, as you have time. - BilCat (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I shortened it but I'm not really knowledgeable in military aviation. On a side note, I had a nice and unexpected PDF flyaway complete with coloured smoke while I was surfing yesterday. Best good wave celebration ever! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Cool! And thanks for helping out. User:OJOM made a lot of messes that are still being cleaned up. - BilCat (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Gulfstream pic[edit]

Marc, I need to check what you meant by "the point was to illustrate the cited "Tanzanian Government" G550, not to have another picture, so I removed it if you think technical quality was too low. I'm sorry I don't want to block you". On Wikipedia, as you know, to block means that the person is blocked from editing for a time. Is that what you think may happen if I make, in your opinion, another "mistake". Perhaps you meant you were sorry to seem to be blocking my addition of pics? Just for your information I have around 2000 pics on WP and have been adding pics since 2002, specialising on aircraft.

My reason for adding the pic was because the article has no exact side view of the G550 so I disagree with its removal. Maybe it should have been placed elsewhere in the article? Best wishes, Arpingstone (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Disambiguation link notification for September 10[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fokker 100, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wing chord (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2018 (

Paris Air show[edit]

Can you explain why you deleted my submission about 1967 Documentary Film? Quickscan1 22:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Because it didn't support any article material. There is often an =external links= section in articles to put this kind of things, but please read Wikipedia:External links before, thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
What would I have to provide to make it relevant? g. Quickscan1 21:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quickscan1 (talkcontribs)
If you have to ask, it probably isn't.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)