User talk:24.206.65.142

December 2024

Hello, I'm BilCat. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, General Electric GE90, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Boeing 777. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ZLEA _T\^C 14:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Boeing 777, you may be blocked from editing. ZLEA _T\^C 15:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at General Electric GE90. ZLEA _T\^C 15:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Its not vandalism, Fnlayson has adjusted some of my edits but not reverted like you have. Plus some information on GE90 is outdated since 777 Classics production has ended and no 777-300 was ordered with GE90. 24.206.65.142 (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't speculate on Fnlayson's reasoning. If they're truly fine with your edits, they'll say so. We also need sources that explicitly state that no 777-300 were ordered with the GE90. The FAA TCDS is not enough, as it makes no mention of orders and more engines can be added with a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC). - ZLEA _T\^C 15:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that the specifications table for 777-300 only lists the RR Trent 800 and PW 4000.

I'm not saying the 777-300 was equipped with the GE90, just that you have not provided any sources that actually support your claims. If you can provide a reliable source that explicitly (not implicitly through omission) states that no 777-300s were ordered with the engine, then you can add it to the article. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to make a big deal of this, but if you insist then the registration of 777-300s shows that they have either Trent 800 or PW 4000. [1] 24.206.65.142 (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be WP:OR. If reliable sources don't consider the lack of GE90-powered 777-300s to be worth noting, then neither do we. Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say, not what they don't say. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

777F

Please do not add unofficial designations to for the 777F to the Boeing 777 article. The existence of the unofficial "777-200LRF" designation is already covered in the article, and there is no need to "make it clear that it refers to original production 777F" since no other variant has been referred to by that designation. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fnlayson is okay with use of 777-200LRF, plus these sources makes reference to 777-200LRF versus the 777-300ERSF https://leehamnews.com/2018/07/17/farnborough-boeing-global-services-ponders-777-300er-p2f-program/ https://www.atlasairworldwide.com/boeing-fleet/777-200lrf/ https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/kalitta-to-be-launch-operator-of-777-300ersf-converted-freighter/140852.article 24.206.65.142 (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Fnlayson is okay with prominently using unofficial designations in place of the official designation, they have not made it clear. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with the way Boeing designates its aircraft, you will have to bring it up with Boeing. Like it or not, no amount of operators using "777-200LRF" will change the fact that it is unofficial and improper. No such aircraft has appeared in official Boeing or FAA documents. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both designations are correct. 777F is Boeing's original launch name, however numerous cargo operators and the conversion company have used 777-200LRF to specifically distinguish it from the 777-300ERSF aftermarket conversion, plus there is an upcoming 777-8F.

What part of no amount of operators using "777-200LRF" will change the fact that it is unofficial and improper don't you understand? Give me one example of Boeing or the FAA referring to the 777F as "777-200LRF", that's all I'm asking. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not required. For clarify 777-200LRF will clear up the confusion with subsequent 777 freighter models. 24.206.65.142 (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Boeing thought there would be any confusion between the 777F and other freighter variants, they would have redesignated the 777F themselves. The "777-200LRF" designation is misinformation, plain and simple. It was made up by a few 777F operators in an attempt to solve a non-existent problem. Using this false designation will only create more confusion as it fools readers into believing Boeing built a variant under that designation, which they absolutely did not. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.