User talk:Mfb

Archive

older items

I think I wiped out the edit you made to remove the uncertainty principle from the Neutrino article. We were both editing simultaneously, and I put in a huge, mostly cosmetic update over-top of yours (I've been checking the citations, and have to compare them side-by-side to find duplicates. So far none, but I'm only ~3/4 done.). However, I'm confused about the edit, because it looks like I removed the mention of the Uncertainty Principle too. Could you please check it, and re-institute your change, if the change is still needed? 107.127.18.55 (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The uncertainty principle is a statement about states, not our experimental capabilities. --mfb (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would you be interested in joining a WikiProject SpaceX? If you are, can you please make a WikiProject proposal for it (I as an IP, can not make the proposal cause I would be stopped when trying to create the proposal page). @Mfb:

You could register, 100.2.238.109 (and please sign talk page comments either way). Would provide a more natural place for some discussions involving multiple articles, but I'm not sure how important that is. --mfb (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It also could help improve SpaceX articles coverage, which more broader WIkiProjects have a harder time of doing (like spaceflight, rocketry and space, which are too big to provide the required attention to SpaceX). Would you join? You can post support at its proposal page.100.2.238.109talk @Mfb:

Sorry about that, and thanks for reverting. I think "Starbase" is major part of the Starship system and needs a summary section in this aritcle, but I should have added the summary section before placing that sentence in the lede. Furthermore, unless I can find and cite the references that I think I remember, that (miss?) info cannot be in the article at all. I also absolutely hate the names "Starbse" and "Starship" for these primitive entities that are restricted to this solar system.-Arch dude (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starbase is mentioned in the lead but the main text doesn't discuss how relevant it is for the program at the moment, so there is certainly potential to improve something. Maybe something like "As of August 2021, most manufacturing and all test flights have been conducted there" for now? Long-term the article could get a dedicated section on construction/launch sites. --mfb (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just a short summary section, since there is already a full-up article. -Arch dude (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an image of that booster standing on the droneship?

I don't need one, I have a reliable source reporting it. --mfb (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

117.249.164.185 (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Timestamp of "report"???[reply]

I presume he means the item at 09/15/2021 20:17 - which is when we saw the landing footage cut out.

Does this really qualify as reliable source? It seems like a one-person blog, not a curated source with a editorial board. And "arrived at droneship" isn't the same as "safely arrived". I watched that live, and the video cut out right as the booster was arriving. If something went wrong in the last two seconds (not unthinkable for the "suicide hoverslam" falcon 9 performs), it wouldn't have been known at that time. I haven't seen anything else from any sources confirming (or denying) that it landed safely. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up. This source is a curated source, not a single-person blog. It says "landed". Tarl N. (discuss) 02:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's normal that the video cuts out at the landing, it's surprising in the rare cases when it does not. SpaceflightNow is a reputable source used all over Wikipedia's spaceflight articles. --mfb (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's still making a statement without knowledge. "This usually happens" does not mean "this happened". As for SpaceFlightNow being used all over Wikipedia, Remember, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. So that doesn't make it a reliable source. In particular, a one-person blog hosted on that website is not a reliable source. However, the source from SpaceX appears to be curated rather than a single-person blog - the difference is whether retractions are issued when a misstatement is made. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a general matter, realizing that this isn't our first discussion. You need to read WP:CRYSTALBALL. You seem to have a tendency to want to get statements into the record before they happen or are confirmed. Don't do that. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempt to interpret things into a cut video feed is original research. I explained to you why you did it wrong (a cut video feed is expected) - not that it would matter because your OR wouldn't be useful anyway. That's why we use reliable sources, and I had already linked one before you joined this discussion. Your inability to recognize it as reliable source is not an argument. No one used Wikipedia as source for anything in any article so this criticism isn't addressing anything either. --mfb (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NO, your attempt to assume a safe landing from a video which does not show it, is original research WP:CRYSTALBALL. Looking at our previous discussion, this is characteristic of you - you want to assume things which are not explicit in your references. And my ability to recognize reliable resources is not an issue - we can have this discussion on the appropriate noticeboard if you prefer. The definition of WP:RS is very clear, and a single-person blog is not it, no matter how much you believe it. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not assuming a safe landing from a video. How did you get that idea? You are the one who keeps referencing the video. SpaceX confirmed in their webcast that the booster landed (video). SpaceflightNow wrote that the booster landed. Meanwhile you keep talking about the video cut which is completely normal, and then push your OR into the discussion. --mfb (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get some things clear here. I watched the live-stream, and wondered whether the booster landed safely. As you point out, it's not unusual for the feed to cut out, but that happens BOTH when they land safely and when they crash. So I looked on-line to find out, and saw an edit war you were having, where you cited Stephen Clark as a reliable source, saying it had landed safely. Clark is not a WP:RS. NO single person is. EVER. And he didn't say it had landed safely.

The later message from SpaceX did specifically say it landed safely. But that was not the "reliable source" you asserted above. That's what I'm complaining about - your tendency to want to stick things in based on incomplete and non-reliable sources.

My complaint here isn't about a specific edit - it's about your pattern of making bad edits. You need to read both WP:RS and WP:NOTNEWS. Getting new stuff into the encyclopedia within seconds is not the goal here - the goal is to get it RIGHT the first time. To NEVER add false information. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you finally realized the video is irrelevant. They announced that the booster landed in the livestream just seconds later, I linked it with timestamp above. The goal was to land, both the stream and SFN said it landed. If that's not a success then I don't know what would be. I was not "having an edit war", I made one revert of a clearly misguided IP edit and updated some statistics. If every revert of IP-added nonsense is an edit war now... I was getting it right, fixing the IP edit adding wrong information to Wikipedia. What more do you want? If you think a single person cannot be a reliable source then you should try to make that a new Wikipedia guideline, because the current guideline explicitly allows it. I have read these guidelines. Maybe you should do so, too. --mfb (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you might recognize me as a Starship addict on Wikipedia Discord. Since you have edited many pages related to SpaceX in general, you might like reviewing SpaceX Starship article at peer review page. I want to get more feedback on improving the article, especially for a launch vehicle in development. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are still so many things unknown/in development, and so many users editing stuff all the time, that I think the best approach is to wait and just update it as needed. The current state isn't bad, and once things have settled a bit more we can work on restructuring it. --mfb (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad, I have nominated it for FAC now lol :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened talk page discussion at EmDrive talk page about recently removed content and you could be interested about. Thank you. 79.101.168.170 (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just stumbled across some of your highly amusing and on-point responses to cosmic brain types on the archived Higgs Boson talk pages. (Don't even ask how I ended up on those pages, because truly I don't even know myself.) Anyway, bravo, keep up the good work, etc :) Tpth (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hit rollback by mistake.. Apologies for that. Done reverted my revert.. Happy editing...Volten001 ^☎ 09:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can happen. --mfb (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard § NPOV issues in some sections at Space Race. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STICK. I don't see a single user agreeing with you. --mfb (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's too early to say that yet as people like Justin haven't offered their comments yet presumably because they're busy. However I'll be happy to move forward towards discussion on how to settle the matter (like the use of note tags) if they had since changed their mind.204.15.72.92 (talk) 09:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your remark that the undoing of your June 2021 edit of the article about the equatorial ridge on Iapetus added back "redundancy and strange phrasing" doesn't half strike me as hypocritical, given that a revision of mine that you undid reinstated not only a strange, nonstandard expression ("gone under upgrade"), but a missing period (or full stop) and a misused word on top of that.

The changes of mine that were undone by you can be viewed at the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Large_Hadron_Collider&diff=846329044&oldid=846310457

As I see it, no logical problem resulted from my rewording, for I do not think that the changes I made produced a sentence necessarily implying that inactivity of the Large Hadron Collider caused upgrades to be made to it or created a need for them. This is assuming, however, that I haven't misunderstood your explanation for the reversion – something I admittedly can't be sure of, considering how vague the explanation was.

Either way, I will concede that it now occurs to me that a slightly better rewording might have been to say that the machine was "out of use for two years while it was being upgraded." SevenZeroSix (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That edit was from 2018 and the paragraph has been changed by others in the meantime. I agree that "gone under upgrade" sounds strange, but I don't remember why I didn't rephrase it because it was four years ago. --mfb (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mfb. I've seen you editing recently and you seem like an experienced Wikipedia editor. Would you please consider applying to become a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 10:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check the changed made to this the past few days for the FH#4 launch and Hotbird 13G? Also, could you make a note of what would need to be changed after a Falcon Heavy launch with expended boosters for future reference. AmigaClone (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I check every edit of that page - after looking into the boosters again I'm not happy with the situation how FH/F9 are handled. Need to think about it. The template was made to replace article data: Some articles combined the boosters, some listed them separately, some didn't make clear what exactly they listed, so it's a bit tricky. F9 boosters flying on FH and vice versa doesn't make it easier either. --mfb (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the number F9launches on the Template:Falcon rocket statistics has drifted when compared to the List of Falcon 9 launches. The former shows 414 while the later shows 412. AmigaClone (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship regarding a note that a user is repeatedly trying to insert into the "failures" section. The thread is RfC on "clarifying failure in infobox". Thank you. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 19:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here.[1] yeah, you're probably right. TBH, I missed the Tedros comment in the second source cited. Probably jaded by too many editors trying to insert "pandemic's over folks!" content based on their own hopium not sources. Sorry! Bon courage (talk) 09:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this time it appears that somehow the number of launches in Template:Falcon rocket statistics/data has drifted a bit. The articles in the "List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy Launches" indicate 418 total Falcon 9 flights. This is different than the number displayed in 631 which as I type this shows 420. AmigaClone (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went through launch lists trying to fix it. I think some confusion comes from the F9/FH mix in some parameters, separating them would make maintenance easier. --mfb (talk) 08:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page discussion of this. That's probably the best place for further attempts to reach consensus on what material is appropriate for the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Security_Space_Launch#Commercial_launches (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 04:44, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Can you please provide a source for this edit. It’s good information and I’d hate to see it deleted for a lack of a citation. Thanks! RickyCourtney (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of a source saying that explicitly. It's easy to verify that the Moon-bound Apollo missions all went directly from LEO to the Moon, and that no one else went that far out. If you want to remove good information just because we don't know anyone who wrote that explicitly in a single place, go ahead, that's your choice then. --mfb (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I really don’t want to delete it. That’s why I was hoping you might know of a source that mentioned it. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]