User talk:RobertoRMola
Hello from Canada
[edit]I noticed your discussion on the Wright Brothers, and in checking your page, noticed that you are an airline pilot. Which airline? aircraft? You can see my edit history and that I am also in the same biz, but I fly a plywood version. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC).
- Hi, Bzuk. Plywood, you said? Better than nothing, isn't? Because that's my condition now: at home waiting for any Brazilian airline to hire me. My last flight was on a VASP's Boeing 737-200 on November 2004. Few months later the company went bankrupt. Still dreaming (thanks to PC Flight Simulator)... BTW, I love your country (love snow and cold!), used to visit Toronto on VASP flight VP888/889 (MD-11 São Paulo - New York - Toronto) several times as 1st Officer. I also checked your page: congratulations! Fantastic aviation attributes. Wished to have a beer with you and talk about aviation stuff: I'm sure we have a lot of things to exchange...RobertoRMola (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Did you fly Mike Alpha? Is it true what they say about many of the instruments not working in its last days, being unable to do ILS landings and such? XXX antiuser eh? 20:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- I did fly PP-SMA a lot! Despite it's age, was one of the best 737 of VASP's fleet. Never heard such stories about ILS problems. That's one of many bulls..ts about VASP, crew and fleet!!!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertoRMola (talk • contribs)
- The story I heard was actually praising the crew, apparently at one time MA came into GIG with a non-functional APU and no ILS so the crew just had to do the whole approach and landing "by hand". I liked VP, was sad when it closed. Same with RG, which is still around but not the same. Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia, you seem like you have a lot to contribute! Cheers, XXX antiuser eh? 18:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- You touched one interesting aspect: the crew performance. I can testify that was because the pilots - and instructors - were aware of aged planes' "idiosyncracies" and acted farsightedly. Something not so well understood - and taught, unfortunately - at brand new super automatized airliners. APU failure is common event; being out of order for monthes on the same plane is something completely different... We got dual ILS receivers, ADI, HSI, flight directors at 737. So we're talking about a DUAL failure (almost impossible) or a general electric failure (much likely). Nevertheless, I'm missing that days...
- The story I heard was actually praising the crew, apparently at one time MA came into GIG with a non-functional APU and no ILS so the crew just had to do the whole approach and landing "by hand". I liked VP, was sad when it closed. Same with RG, which is still around but not the same. Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia, you seem like you have a lot to contribute! Cheers, XXX antiuser eh? 18:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- I did fly PP-SMA a lot! Despite it's age, was one of the best 737 of VASP's fleet. Never heard such stories about ILS problems. That's one of many bulls..ts about VASP, crew and fleet!!!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertoRMola (talk • contribs)
- Did you fly Mike Alpha? Is it true what they say about many of the instruments not working in its last days, being unable to do ILS landings and such? XXX antiuser eh? 20:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, Bzuk. Plywood, you said? Better than nothing, isn't? Because that's my condition now: at home waiting for any Brazilian airline to hire me. My last flight was on a VASP's Boeing 737-200 on November 2004. Few months later the company went bankrupt. Still dreaming (thanks to PC Flight Simulator)... BTW, I love your country (love snow and cold!), used to visit Toronto on VASP flight VP888/889 (MD-11 São Paulo - New York - Toronto) several times as 1st Officer. I also checked your page: congratulations! Fantastic aviation attributes. Wished to have a beer with you and talk about aviation stuff: I'm sure we have a lot of things to exchange...RobertoRMola (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted your revision on Christ the Redeemer (statue) because you removed a sourced piece of information and replaced it with unsourced info. I do believe your assertions are correct, but unless a reliable source is cited, it constitutes original research, which is not allowed based on Wikipedia policy. If you find a source, by all means add it back. Cheers, XXX antiuser eh? 22:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Did it.RobertoRMola (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Good job. I made a minor change but all the facts and refs you cited are still there. XXX antiuser eh? 18:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks!RobertoRMola (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Good job. I made a minor change but all the facts and refs you cited are still there. XXX antiuser eh? 18:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
P6M-1 #1 accident
[edit]I just added a reply to your question about the failure mode of the P6M-1 #1 accident. I am intending in the next few weeks to review my books on the P6M, and the Seaplane Striking Force concept of what it was intended to be the offensive weapon.Mark Lincoln (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, thanks Mark! You gave me some light about that event, and about my interpretation capacity, also... --RobertoRMola (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Sources
[edit]Simply because something is a book and not available on the internet does not mean it cannot be used as a cite. The Wykeham book is on of only two non-Brazilian bigraphies of Dumont: imo removing a cite and replacing it with a cite needed tag is little short of vandakism. Incidentally I believe that Voisin also makes some claim to have helped Dumont in his autobiography.TheLongTone (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Everybody can write a book (available on web or not) full of lies. Pay the publisher and it`s done. There are thousands of books on libraries and networks following this "concept". Wykenham book is not a Santos-Dumont biography. One person can be a vandal or not; partial attitudes are impossible. Mr. Wykenham, by the way, is a complete vandal and you are his loyal follower. If you, "incidentally", believe in something, put on a book or on social network; if you have a good proof about an historic event, put on wikipedia (such "ping-pong" with you is an old theme, but I cannot leave my user talk page blank on this theme). RobertoRMola (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
EMB-712 Cariquinha/Tupi
[edit]Why did you remove the "Cariquinha" name in this edit? Both names are supported by reliable sources. - ZLEA T\C 02:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- There has never been an Embraer/Neiva/Piper aircraft called Cariquinha or Carioquinha. There must be some confusion on your part since "Carioquinha" (with an O) is the diminutive form of "Carioca", which is the EMB-710 (version of the Cherokee 235 Pathfinder).
- Embraer 712 (Piper Archer II) was always called Tupi in Brazil and never by any other name. And "Cariquinha" (without an O) is an unknown word in the Portuguese language. More correct information on the official Embraer/Neiva website https://historicalcenter.embraer.com/global/en/piper RobertoRMola (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a source which supports your explanation and explicitly addresses the alleged erroneous nature of the "Cariquinha" name? Original research does not trump reliable sources. - ZLEA T\C 18:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand correctly... If you want to discuss philology, things will get very complicated, as there are no reliable sources that indicate that a word is written incorrectly (for obvious reasons - the error can be personal or individual and not standardized). In any case, there is a spelling source for the root word "Carioca" on page 406 of the First Reprint of "Houaiss Dictionary of the Portuguese Language". A quick search on the same dictionary page DID NOT FIND the existence of "cariquinha" (because it is wrong!) or "carioquinha" (because it is a diminutive, not present in ANY dictionaries). But, if your question is whether or not the name "Cariquinha" exists for an Embraer aircraft, then the answer has already been given - see the OFFICIAL Embraer website (EMB-712 manufacturer!) that I mentioned above (they named the aircraft as "Tupi", after a Brazilian native people). Moreover, I don't own any of the books you say are "reliable sources" for "both names". Do you have these books? If so, is the word "Cariquinha" mentioned in them? Honestly, I don't intend to buy them abroad, just wait weeks to receive them (regret the expense), check whether there are spelling errors or not and then (be able to) answer your wiki questions. Anyway, understand: books written by third parties cannot be an official source of information of products from other companies (or are they?). I will be very pleased seeing you reverting your edition. Thank you. RobertoRMola (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I suggest you read WP:SECONDARY, as what you call "[sources] written by third parties" are almost always preferred over primary sources, such as official websites. That said, the Embraer website doesn't even mention the "Cariquinha" name, much less deny its existence. As for whether "Cariquinha exists in any of the article's sources, yes. It is explicitly mentioned in Piper Aircraft and their forerunners by Peperell and Smith. I can visit my library and retrieve the exact page number if you wish. As for the fact that "Cariquinha" is not a Portuguese word, I'll argue that it doesn't have to be. Aircraft manufacturers aren't limited by their native language's dictionary when choosing names for their aircraft, and it is not uncommon for manufacturers to deviate from standard spellings of otherwise common words for whatever reason they want. I am not opposed to swapping the placement of the two names in the article, but until reliable sources are provided that disprove the "Cariquinha" name, both must remain. Even if such a source is provided, it would still be beneficial to cover any names proven to be erroneous at least in a footnote. - ZLEA T\C 20:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is laughable!!!! Not giving credit to the factory for the name given to one of its products is the same as doubting that my parents gave me the name Roberto! Other thing is this creative narrative that is not a Portuguese word, but it doesn't have to be. Who decide that? The whole thing with Wikipedia is so absurd, that if Embraer itself sends a letter confirming that the name of the aircraft is TUPI and not this ridiculous and illiterate "Cariquinha", you and all the noble and wise Wikipedia editors will still reject it based on the rules that "Original research does not trump reliable sources"... I understand that I could quote hundreds of sources for the existence of the name Tupi for the EMB-712, but still you and your learned colleagues from professional wiki editions would demand sources for the non-existence of the name "Cariquinha", even if they are non-existent. I won't bother doing that, my only interest is to correct the errors. "Truth is out there, Scully!" is a famous phrase, but somebody could say "Trout is out there" and I'd had to prove that fish isn't there with "reliable third party sources". If I had the book in hand, I would have had the nerve to contact the authors to question them about the origin of the name "that-doesn't-have-to-be-Portuguese-word". It is at this point that sources typically begin to become questionable and writers publish revised editions.
- Last question: what if I publish a book of my own with the sole intention of correcting that information, would it then be a reliable source? Would be wikiperfect, isn't? But... would it be real? RobertoRMola (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- At last: see the portuguese page for article "Piper PA-28" and look for "Cariquinha", then tell me pt.wikipedia is not a reliable source. RobertoRMola (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's clear to me that you lack a fundamental understanding about how verifiability on Wikipedia works. No, the Portuguese Wikipedia is not a reliable source, nor is any Wikipedia. The lack of information on Embraer's website does not mean that said information is untrue. Furthermore, it is not impossible for sources to exist that cover erroneous aircraft names or misconceptions. Indeed, the very fact that you asked if you could publish a book to do just that is proof. And to answer your question, yes, it would be an acceptable source if you published a book and had it editorialized and checked for accuracy. However, I would strongly recommend that you do not go through the trouble if the only reason for publishing is to correct a perceived inaccuracy on Wikipedia. - ZLEA T\C 22:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is no lack of information on Embraer. You lack a primordial understanding: for you what is not stated there can simply exist or is possible. Period. Someone could say, for instance, that EMB-712 is a biplane. You won't find ANY information about the number of wings in the website or any printed manuals. So YOU understand that a second pair of wings CAN exist! This is getting more and more ridiculous. You can mention whatever you want about the wiki rules, but the reality cannot be modified, and whoever consults the wiki articles wants to be educated on a subject. Can you recommend wikipedia as an accurate and TRUE source of information, considering all the rules you mentioned? RobertoRMola (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your logic is fundamentally flawed here. If a source claims that the EMB-712 is a biplane, but multiple other sources directly contradict it by calling it a monoplane, then we can disregard those first source as it cannot be both a monoplane and a biplane at the same time. Aircraft names are not so simple. If one source calls the EMB-712 "Cariquinha" while others call it "Tupi", then we can't just assume that the first source is wrong as aircraft can have more than one name, as many aircraft do. Unless there are reliable sources which directly address the erroneous nature of a specific name, we cannot ignore said name or the source that supports it. After all, WP:VNT. - ZLEA T\C 23:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- If it's any consolation, it appears "Cariquinha" is indeed a typo for "Carioquinha". Performing a Type Designator search for "P28A" in the official search engine of the International Civil Aviation Organization gives separate entries for the EMB-712 Tupi and EMB-712 Carioquinha, possibly indicating that they are not simply alternative names, but maybe at least slightly different variants. - ZLEA T\C 23:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- And here is a document from the Brazilian government (specifically the Central Bank of Brazil) which refers to the aircraft as "Carioquinha". - ZLEA T\C 23:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- And another from the National Civil Aviation Agency of Brazil. - ZLEA T\C 23:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for erase the Cariquinha from the article. Regarding the EMB-712 Carioquinha in some documents you quoted, I just sent an inquiry directly to Embraer and will post something after their response. If they say both names are official for the same aircraft, end of discussion. If they say it was a nickname incorporated by some entities, I will stand by my opinion. RobertoRMola (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Whether the name "Carioquinha" is officially used by Embraer or is an unofficial nickname, it's still worthy of inclusion in the article. There are many examples of unofficial nicknames covered in Wikipedia articles. For example, the Boeing P-26 was never officially named "Peashooter", but the widespread use of the name has led to even the Boeing P-26 Peashooter article including it in the title. - ZLEA T\C 00:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for erase the Cariquinha from the article. Regarding the EMB-712 Carioquinha in some documents you quoted, I just sent an inquiry directly to Embraer and will post something after their response. If they say both names are official for the same aircraft, end of discussion. If they say it was a nickname incorporated by some entities, I will stand by my opinion. RobertoRMola (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is no lack of information on Embraer. You lack a primordial understanding: for you what is not stated there can simply exist or is possible. Period. Someone could say, for instance, that EMB-712 is a biplane. You won't find ANY information about the number of wings in the website or any printed manuals. So YOU understand that a second pair of wings CAN exist! This is getting more and more ridiculous. You can mention whatever you want about the wiki rules, but the reality cannot be modified, and whoever consults the wiki articles wants to be educated on a subject. Can you recommend wikipedia as an accurate and TRUE source of information, considering all the rules you mentioned? RobertoRMola (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's clear to me that you lack a fundamental understanding about how verifiability on Wikipedia works. No, the Portuguese Wikipedia is not a reliable source, nor is any Wikipedia. The lack of information on Embraer's website does not mean that said information is untrue. Furthermore, it is not impossible for sources to exist that cover erroneous aircraft names or misconceptions. Indeed, the very fact that you asked if you could publish a book to do just that is proof. And to answer your question, yes, it would be an acceptable source if you published a book and had it editorialized and checked for accuracy. However, I would strongly recommend that you do not go through the trouble if the only reason for publishing is to correct a perceived inaccuracy on Wikipedia. - ZLEA T\C 22:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I suggest you read WP:SECONDARY, as what you call "[sources] written by third parties" are almost always preferred over primary sources, such as official websites. That said, the Embraer website doesn't even mention the "Cariquinha" name, much less deny its existence. As for whether "Cariquinha exists in any of the article's sources, yes. It is explicitly mentioned in Piper Aircraft and their forerunners by Peperell and Smith. I can visit my library and retrieve the exact page number if you wish. As for the fact that "Cariquinha" is not a Portuguese word, I'll argue that it doesn't have to be. Aircraft manufacturers aren't limited by their native language's dictionary when choosing names for their aircraft, and it is not uncommon for manufacturers to deviate from standard spellings of otherwise common words for whatever reason they want. I am not opposed to swapping the placement of the two names in the article, but until reliable sources are provided that disprove the "Cariquinha" name, both must remain. Even if such a source is provided, it would still be beneficial to cover any names proven to be erroneous at least in a footnote. - ZLEA T\C 20:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand correctly... If you want to discuss philology, things will get very complicated, as there are no reliable sources that indicate that a word is written incorrectly (for obvious reasons - the error can be personal or individual and not standardized). In any case, there is a spelling source for the root word "Carioca" on page 406 of the First Reprint of "Houaiss Dictionary of the Portuguese Language". A quick search on the same dictionary page DID NOT FIND the existence of "cariquinha" (because it is wrong!) or "carioquinha" (because it is a diminutive, not present in ANY dictionaries). But, if your question is whether or not the name "Cariquinha" exists for an Embraer aircraft, then the answer has already been given - see the OFFICIAL Embraer website (EMB-712 manufacturer!) that I mentioned above (they named the aircraft as "Tupi", after a Brazilian native people). Moreover, I don't own any of the books you say are "reliable sources" for "both names". Do you have these books? If so, is the word "Cariquinha" mentioned in them? Honestly, I don't intend to buy them abroad, just wait weeks to receive them (regret the expense), check whether there are spelling errors or not and then (be able to) answer your wiki questions. Anyway, understand: books written by third parties cannot be an official source of information of products from other companies (or are they?). I will be very pleased seeing you reverting your edition. Thank you. RobertoRMola (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a source which supports your explanation and explicitly addresses the alleged erroneous nature of the "Cariquinha" name? Original research does not trump reliable sources. - ZLEA T\C 18:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)