User talk:BilCat/archive18

Mirage 4000

Please explain why Mirage 4000 is not similar to Su-27. Thank you--Arado (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Different role. - BilCat (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the role of the Mirage 4000 and that of the Su-27?--Arado (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Read the articles. - BilCat (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia says fighter/interceptor for Mirage 4000 and air superiority for Su-27. So if the MIrage is similar to F-15, and everyone agrees that F-15 is similar to Su-27, why is Mirage 4000 not similar to Su-27?--Arado (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The Mirage 4000 is more similar to the Tornado, and neither is an air superiority fighter. If it's listed as similar to the basic F-15, then it should probably be removed. Please bear in mind that the Similar aircraft section can be highly controversial, and isn't used at all in some articles because of this. - BilCat (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, i know it is controversial, for obvious reasons. Then the question is how maneuverable was the Mirage 4000, relating to the air superiority capability. The interception capability is already confirmed--Arado (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the question is, What reliable sources consider it to be an air superiority fighter? Granted, the there isn't a lot available on the 4000, as it was never sold. - BilCat (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source

please explain what is a reliable source. Do you understand what is a strike fighter and a fighter-bomber?--Arado (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:RS. Yes, I do. -BilCat (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

then please write what is the difference between strike fighter and fighter bomber, and let's see which description fits the Su-34 best. Thank you--Arado (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, neither one fits. It's a tactical bomber. - BilCat (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

If it's a tactical bomber, then why does it have air-to-air capability?--Arado (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

For self protection.- BilCat (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

YOu could say it is for self protection if it was only short-range air-to-air missiles, but it also carries medium-range air-to-air missiles--Arado (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It's primary role is still as a bomber. - BilCat (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

That is true, primary role is medium-range bomber/interdiction. I agree. I even wrote that in the introduction. But then we need to find reliable sources which say this is a medium-range bomber capable of dogfight (which it still is, even if it's heavier than a SU-30) and even medium-range interception, if neither fighter-bomber nor strike fighter describe it best.--Arado (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Americans

see: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/87645/can-i-use-us-american-to-disambiguate-american-if-not-what-can-i-use --190.171.207.76 (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

"US-American" is still not that common in English. It's use is covered at Names for United States citizens. If you want to have it included in the Lead title, pleas use the article's talk page to build a consensus to support it. Be prepared to cite reliable sources that this is common usage in English. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Chow

	All American meal
	To fuel your continued positive editing of Wikipedia, I hereby present to you this In-N-Out double-double, fries, and drink. May it help you continue to edit here on Wikipedia. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sukhoi Su-25

Can you keep an eye on this article. It has been the object of operatives that are trying to change the specifications page to bolster a completely spurious claim by Russia that a Ukrainian SU-25 was responsible for the downing of MH17. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Northrop Have Blue

try this one at page 13 https://books.google.ro/books?id=Q_wyJ_pKcqoC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false --Arado (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't access that link for some reason. But if it's meets WP:RS, just cite it as an bookz and and the link. - BilCat (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Easter eggs and excellence

I appreciate the WP link and follow the rationale given. I obviously appreciate the importance (in all senses) of the Israeli Air Force link for readers, so probably should have reversed the pipe order. Your solution is fine. Cheers Irondome (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Glad to help. - BilCat (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

RE: User:109.154.157.120 vandalism

Please see IP editor history, whom you have already warned; he/she continues to vandalize Glenanne gang article. Thanks. Quis separabit? 00:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Aérospatiale Alouette III

Bill I placed a protection request on the Alouette III article, if see anything worth adding to the requet please do so - Thanks FOX 52 (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

X-36 and tailless aircraft

Hi,

I see you reverted my edits to the McDonnell Douglas X-36 and tailless aircraft articles. The problem I have with NASA's description of the X-36 is that it does not meet the standard definition of a tailless aircraft, given in standard sources. In standard usage, tailless means there is no auxiliary horizontal plane, whether a tail plane or a "tail in the front" aka canard (aeronautics) foreplane. It does not imply the lack of a vertical fin, for example the Concorde is a tailless delta. Rather, the X-36 is more correctly described as finless. NASA's publicity usage appears to be just a casual abuse of a well-defined technical term. For example the B-2, which you mention in an edit comment, is tailless according to the standard definition as well. Hence its presence in the article. The X-36 has a canard foreplane and is therefore not a tailless aircraft in the usual sense. Since you restored it, it is now the only canard aircraft in the article and that is surely an unhappy situation. I would suggest that before we can accept the NASA usage as reliable and authoritative, we need an independent reliable source to confirm it. I am not aware of any such. Do you still have a problem with this understanding? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The actual name of the aircraft is "Tailless Fighter Agility Research Aircraft". You changed the name to "Fighter Agility Research Aircraft", which is not the program's name! Seriously? So now we can change actual program names if we think it's an incorrect definition? That's like the vandals who change Ministry of Defence to Ministry of Attack, because they think it's a more accurate name. Serious editors don't do that. Also, your explanation was unsourced OR - you'll have to add a reliable source that actually says that the X-36 is not tailless. As to the Tailless aircraft article, I've reverted myself, but tagged the definition for citation needed. I'm willing to admit I may be wrong to consider aircraft with canards as tailless, but it may also be an ENGVAR issue. If so, then both definitions need to be covered. - BilCat (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"Serious editors don't do that". Serious editors don't slag off their colleagues either. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Point taken. My apologies. I do think you are a serious editor, and I was surprised you would "correct" an existing name. But I didn't have to make my point that way. - BilCat (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I should have realised it was the X-36 programme name. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Your reversion of US American

Why not make a good faith effort to find out why this hatnote was put in place before you hastily revert. Not cool man, not cool at all. And I meant to put an edit summary of my reversion of your reversion, but I hit enter accidentally at the wrong time. I suspect we'll go through this process once more at least as a result. Vranak (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the article in the hatnote before reverting your edit. I saw nothing about US Americans other than a single mention in the girl's answer, and nothing else in the article is related to usage of the term. At this point you haven't even tried to make a case for why the hatnote should be there. What you need to now is to revert yourself, and use the article's talk page to build a consensus to support your edit. I'm not going to edit war with you, but I suppect someone else will revert you soon enough. If you revert them, I'll report you for edit warring, and you can suffer any consequences. - BilCat (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Boeing 314

This article has now been semi-protected at my request against editing by anonymous IP users for six months. Centpacrr (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I do appreciate it. I keep meaning to ask Jeff to take a look at the article, as he's a good copy editor, and may be able to make some compromise changes. - BilCat (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Your reversion of Air Jamaica

Please note the airline "AIR JAMAICA" is no longer in existence. The page should be either edited to reflect the former airline that existed prior to complete takeover by Caribbean Airlines. Any page search on Wikipedia reflects Caribbean Airlines as the only airline as well as actual visits to any of the airports flown by the airline. Additionally, the airjamaica.com website simply reverts to caribbean-airlines.com thus showing the non-existent form of the airline. There is no Air Jamaica website, the headquarters of the airline, Caribbean Airlines is also based in Piarco. As a frequent flyer, Air Jamaica exists in merely as a livery on one of the 22 aircraft of the Caribbean Airlines fleet.[1]Saltprune416 (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should edit the page to reflect the former airline as it existed before its sale to Caribbean Airlines, but that should probably be discussed on the article's talk page first. Putting.the Caribbean Airlines' logo on the page is just confusing. - BilCat (talk) 05:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Your reversion of McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II#Iran

Please do not revert repeatedly. I am still working on it. Many thanks. Farhoudk (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop adding the same photo, there are enough photos already. - BilCat (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for the revert. I hope it's okay, but I tend to leave content like that unless it's really, really nasty. Sometimes it is needed for sock evidence or other things. Plus, I try to put everything into the archives I can for the record. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem! Anyway, I thought it was nasty! - 07:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It was a bit nasty. :) I see others have warned her. Anyway, sometimes I feel that if they get a chance to vent, they are less likely to come back. Had I just reverted, it may have infuriated her, and she might have decided to become vengeful and be a nuissance. I will archive it soon, though. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi

I saw that you reverted user Eraseroftheevilshit here, and then some of his sock edits. His new account "Neverguesswhathappened continues to make contentious and incorrect edits, care to join me for a sock report? Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it the same person? The edits seem to be on different subjects. - BilCat (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

GAZ-24 was how I caught the link. The editor has also used several other accounts, all on Soviet era cars, trucks, and planes (Gratefulsight and Intrascanner are others that I've seen so far). Anyhow, if you could perhaps help keep an eye peeled that would be useful. Also, Neverguesswhathappened's first edit was at Ilyushin Il-76, where you originally encountered the evilshit character.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

On a side note: Guyana! Cool. Trying to go there this summer.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Neverguesswhathappened appears to be a sock of Eraseroftheevil. But RS-Fighter doesn't seem to be the same person. Enjoy your trip there! - BilCat (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

your reversion of MOWAG Piranha

Read the article - everything I've put in the infobox is in the article. I am looking at an authoritative source for what I'm putting in. Alanthehat (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Not the point. There are other infoboxes in the article for the variants, plus separate articles on the LAV III, LAV-25, Stryker, etc. Don't overwhelm the infobox with information that's covered elsewhere. - BilCat (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I am prepared to accept your opinion about the title line of the infobox, on reflection my edit was clumsy, by why revert the whole edit? That topmost box appears to describe the whole range. Some of the revert appears to me to be pure vandalism, for instance you have allowed '6x6' to remain, but it was '6x6' yet you have allowed '8x8' to retain it's link. Alanthehat (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I just reverted to what was there before - That's not vandalism. If anything, it's a content dispute. I'll try to look over your edits again later today, and see if anything can be added back. - 15:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Aircraft Engine

Apologies, I thought I was blowing that guff away, not replacing it.TheLongTone (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If you mean that you misread the dif, and you thought you were deleting it, not readding it, I fully understand - I've done that a few times myself! No worries, as nothing was harmed but our egos. :) - BilCat (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Beacon Field Airport website

FROM WARBUCS: I have read all the reasons that external links are not desired or allowed and I agree with all of them. I do not agree with your removal of the link to a historic airport that in one or many other ways is directly connected to the subject of the pages. I'm NOT talking apples and lemons here I'm talking old airplanes and long gone airfields where these airplanes lived and sometimes died! I don't understand what logic you used to delete links that could cause NO harm or confusion. An airport is many times an economic engine for the neighborhood and a meeting place - providing jobs and tax income - it becomes part of the fabric of the community. An explanation is appreciated for your wholesale removal of the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warbucs (talk • contribs) 05:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I meant to leave it on the Beacon Field Airport page, and removed it by mistake - I've since restored it. However, it's not appropriate on all the other pages you've added it to, especially the city and county articles. Even if you're not selling a product, it has the appearance of promoting something, which Wikipedia doesn't allow, and it is only indirectly related to those articles' subjects. If you wish, you can ask for a review of whether or not the link is appropriate at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. I'll abide but whatever the consensus there is. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Captions on Photos

I think you should read those captions again. They make no sense, that's why I tried to fix them. --EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's referring to the RAF Mustang I (Mark I). - BilCat (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I've changed them to "Mustang Mk I" for clarity, as that how most of the RAF marks are already referred to in the article. That should clear up most future confusion. Thanks for spotting this. - BilCat (talk) 04:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Double redirector

• Bill, I'm back. Awoken from my slumber from Arado fan (User:Arado) substituting jet fighter for Fighter aircraft in English Electric Lightning, F-14, F-15, F-22 etc etc... mind taking a lookover? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back. Missed you. I've been trying to keep up WP:AIR's reputation for OWNership all by myself, so it'll be good to have your help. ;) As to Arado, he's been adding hundreds of links to articles over the past month, so I've pretty much just let him be after the first.few reverts. It's just too many to watch them all, and if I notice any really bad ones, they can be dealt with later. - BilCat (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Important fish to fry first. Checkz your email! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

National Football League

Hi, I saw that you put it back to American football in the lede. In most soccer articles, it's football, not association football. Doesn't that mean it should go by whatever the sport is called locally? Busy Moose (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

We use the local term in the NFL article throughout, except at first mention, and I believe Canadian Football League does the same thing, as does Premier League. All the soccer articles ought do the same thing, but their editors have their own POV issues, and so most apparently don't. Talk:National Football_League/Archive 3#American Football has the last discussion on the issue from about 3 years ago, so it probably shouldn't be changed now without some new discussion. - BilCat (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll start a new discussion. The POV issue should be addressed one way or the other. It'd be good to have an objective, standardized approach for all football codes. Busy Moose (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Tim Zukas long-term abuse case

I created a long-term abuse case about the IPs of Tim Zukas who, under the cloak of anonymity, keeps removing critically important text and nuances from various articles about air and rail transportation. You can see the case page at:

• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tim Zukas

I am bringing this to your attention so that you can refer to the LTA case page during future reversions of Tim's removals. You have done a lot to fight the various IPs that Tim has used; so have the following editors who I am pinging: Centpacrr, Bzuk, Flyer22, Trashbag, AgnosticPreachersKid, Vegaswikian, HkCaGu and Mmb777e. To some of you folks (not Centpacrr), the idea will not be new, that Tim Zukas has violated WP:MULTIPLE by using IP addresses.

Here's hoping that the existence of the LTA case page will assist in countering the identified problems. Binksternet (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not new to me either. See, for instance, the edit histories (and page protections) on Overland Limited (UP train), Boeing 314, Braniff International Airways, and the current discussion on Overland Limited_(UP_train)#"Corrections" (particularly item #5). One main issue with this user is that he NEVER supports any of his edits or changes with sources or citations, and often removes the references placed there by others. When challenged to supply sources, he always just repeats his position (which is often abjectly refuted by the sources that he has removed) and declines to provide anything that supports his changes. I am glad to see that an LTA has been started on the behavior of this user. Centpacrr (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Please help explain "American"

Hello. Can you please help explain to two users that the word American refers to something from the United States of America unless it has a modifier like Latin American for something from Latin America and South American for something from South America. User:Kwamikagami has redirected American Spanish to the Spanish language in the Americas page and even starts off the lead sentence with American Spanish (Latin American Spanish would be more appropriate since it mostly about the Spanish language in Latin America) even though American Spanish would refer to the Spanish language in the United States and also removed the language infobox in the Spanish language in the United States page. User:MPA Neto has reverted some of my edits where I added a modifier (example: Hispanic American to refer to something pertaining to Hispanic America), changed the lead to Indigenous peoples of the Americas to say "inhabitants of America", reverted my edit when I changed it to the article title instead of an unnecessary redirect, and reverted on Copa América when I returned to the translation before he changed it even though the link to the Americas is unnecessary especially since it is a tournament for South America. Dash9Z (talk) 08:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the moves, and made a few more edits and reverts. I'm not sure of the proper usage of "Hispanic America", so I haven't addressed that issue. If the pages get moved back in a few hours, don't be surprised. These types of POV editors don't give up easily, and they don't usually wait to get a consensus first either - they'll just keep reverting you. If the changes are reverted again, we'll have to use the talk pages rather than continue to revert, as it's not worth a block for edit warring. - BilCat (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I've also recently restored the lead in Indigenous peoples of the Americas. (Sorry I didn't thank you sooner, I've been busy in real life.) Dash9Z (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. - BilCat (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Please help explain "American"

Hello. Can you please help explain to two users that the word American refers to something from the United States of America unless it has a modifier like Latin American for something from Latin America and South American for something from South America. User:Kwamikagami has redirected American Spanish to the Spanish language in the Americas page and even starts off the lead sentence with American Spanish (Latin American Spanish would be more appropriate since it mostly about the Spanish language in Latin America) even though American Spanish would refer to the Spanish language in the United States and also removed the language infobox in the Spanish language in the United States page. User:MPA Neto has reverted some of my edits where I added a modifier (example: Hispanic American to refer to something pertaining to Hispanic America), changed the lead to Indigenous peoples of the Americas to say "inhabitants of America", reverted my edit when I changed it to the article title instead of an unnecessary redirect, and reverted on Copa América when I returned to the translation before he changed it even though the link to the Americas is unnecessary especially since it is a tournament for South America. Dash9Z (talk) 08:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the moves, and made a few more edits and reverts. I'm not sure of the proper usage of "Hispanic America", so I haven't addressed that issue. If the pages get moved back in a few hours, don't be surprised. These types of POV editors don't give up easily, and they don't usually wait to get a consensus first either - they'll just keep reverting you. If the changes are reverted again, we'll have to use the talk pages rather than continue to revert, as it's not worth a block for edit warring. - BilCat (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I've also recently restored the lead in Indigenous peoples of the Americas. (Sorry I didn't thank you sooner, I've been busy in real life.) Dash9Z (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. - BilCat (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

B model F/A-18s currently in service

Bill if you have a moment I like your input here, regarding the F-18B role "trainer"? or "combat aircraft"? We have sources with conflicting information - Many Thanks FOX 52 (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

SJ radar

You seem to have an interest in military related articles. I briefly looked for a secondary source for this claim. I'm sure the local paper there has a report on it somewhere but their on-line archives don't go back very far. At any rate, they would probably just repeat what the museum tells them about it anyway. Submarinemuneums.org has screen shots of the set working. If you think that is an acceptable source we can add that. That page does have a scan at the bottom of a news report about it but the date is not visible. Nyth63 03:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the primary source is sufficient for it having the radar, now that the link's been corrected. However, the claim to be the oldest working radar would need a reliable secondary source that doesn't just repeat the museum's weak claim, so I removed that part. - BilCat (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

They do qualify their claim with the phrase is thought to be, but that I agree that is not encyclopedic. Perhaps we can at least include age of the radar with the age template with the sub's commission date like this: The radar set is now more than 80 years old? I have visited the sub several times over the past 35+ years and I do find it amazing that they managed to get a 70 year old radar to work. Nyth63 11:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

TPS. Hi there User:Nyth83. I am fascinated by this claim. I tagged it earlier, and genuinely meant what I said in the ed summary. Sorry if it sounded sarky, but it was not meant in that tone. By "working", do you mean the set is actively emitting and detecting? Or have they got "just" managed to get the original controls and CRT to function again? Is it activated for the public to see functioning? As you have seen it, can you give more detail? I would assume that if it was a functioning radar, there would need to be some state or federal licence or permit for that to be issued? That would be an excellent source if it could be found. Regards Irondome (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the radar is FULLY operational. They have photos at the museum of the radar detecting the nearby SS Badger car ferry. Can't use that as a source either as my personal experience would fall under original research. As far as any type of licensing goes, it appears that it is the operator that must be licensed, not the radar itself. Found this link on the FCC site. The search feature on the FCC site is useless because if you search for 'Cobia' or 'ship radar' in the site it gives no results. Used google and found this link for a license for a USS Cobia Amateur Radio Club. Nyth63 02:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Your research is really appreciated mate. I am in London, so I have no idea how or by what parameters the FCC distinguishes between radio and radar. The licencee named ties up with the individual who did the restoration work mentioned in the article you provide above. If we can clarify that an FCC radio licence covers a radar set, which I rather suspect it does, (the US citizen still having considerable freedoms, compared to the stifling legal constraints here) then we have the perfect reference. A mainspace note added explaining and clarifying this would seal it. A source like that would really improve the article, maybe even could be be used as a DYK (Did you know, the daily interesting section on the WP main page) at some time in the future. What do you think User:BilCat? Good work! Regards Irondome (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

M1 Garand

Hi BilCat, Thanks for fixing my addition to M1 Garand on March 27. It was my mistake and I never intended to leave that. The sentence I added to the Features section on March 25 however, I did mean to leave. Is there any reason I can't revert it? Samf4u (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Fuji Heavy Industries

Hi. I explained rationale of my edit at FHI's discussion page.---Now wiki (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

PC 12

Your link does no work. www.pilatus-aircraft.com/.../Pilatus%20Aircraft%20Ltd%20-%20PC-12%20Spectre.pdf ??? That is not a reference. talk→ WPPilot  02:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'll try to fix it. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

NP it still is not working. What is the complete URL for the ref, I will fix it if you like. 02:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)talk→ WPPilot 

The only link I can access from my tablet is from a Google search for "pc-12 spectre". It's a PDF file, but I can't copy the direct link. - BilCat (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

NP, I fixed it. Never heard of that version before, good find. talk→ WPPilot  02:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I was able to access the direct link on my dinosaur laptop. The utilty door seems specific to the special missions version, which has a door-within-a-door. There's a good pic of the door in the link I just added. Thanks for your help. - BilCat (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, that additional link is still a NG model, look at the panel, that (all glass and bad a**) panel is ONLY in the NG. talk→ WPPilot  02:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I LOVE the STC for the Camera did you see how it has a door and extends for use, that is really nice. Again good find. Thank you. 03:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)talk→ WPPilot 

Tagcruft

Meh, that's fine. But I remove years old tagcruft on sight. If the problem is ongoing, then try to keep them up to date! -- Kendrick7^talk 14:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Embedding external links

As I am comparatively new here, and generally only do small gnomish edits, I would like an experienced editor's opinion. Most of the linking I see in articles is Wikilinks, and direct only internally. I have no technical problem with the following edit, and am not commenting on the editor. But... is this [2] type of linking within an article permitted, or should it be moved to the External Links section of the article? I also noticed that the reference that points to that particular entry in the list of survivors points to a forum, so I'm not really sure what (if anything) to do with it.

Finally, since I am here, and you are obviously knowledgeable in the aircraft entries in Wikipedia, maybe you could explain why we use ".50 in" instead of ".50 cal." or ".50 calibre" when referencing the Browning M2. I'm not about to go about changing that sort of thing; I just want to understand better. Thanks in advance! ScrapIronIV (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Embedded links aren't recommended, and ref tags should be used instead. In the case you linked to, the site doesn't appear to be a reliable source, and another editor has removed it, and the link to the forum was also removed. As to using ".50 in" instead of ".50 cal." or ".50 calibre", I honestly don't know the answer to that one! You can probably ask that question at Aircraft Project talk page or Military History project talk page. - BilCat (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Commas

Thanks, I did not know that before. 86.5.31.8 (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem. - BilCat (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hell fire

Dear BilCat
With reference to your edits
I want to say that Pakistan is already using "AGM-114 Hellfire" on its Cobra Helicopters.
Beast wishes
Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 16:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You need to provide a reliable source for that. - BilCat (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Bangalore

Well, within a half hour, an article that somehow did not have a pronunciation key now finally has one, so there you have it. I would love to know another way of doing it, but writing on the talk page does not usually work. Case closed, thankfully. Red Slash 19:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You couldn't wait a day?? - BilCat (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

User:MTalib 1

I've asked this editor to cease & desist from changing aircraft images. Seems to be favouring one airline, doesn't he. Next step is warnings. Mjroots (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. PIA seems to be a popular airline for nationalistic users to spam to articles, though I haven't seen it done much lately. They especially like to replace their photos for those if India or Israel. I usually call it image spamming. - BilCat (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

More referencing mumbo-jumbo

See the following: <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken&diff=prev&oldid=643564023> and go back and forth from this discussion to find the wiki standard being discussed. I know, I know, I thought it was the other way myself. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It appears that {{'''Notes'''}} works just as well with machine readers as our (===) sub-headings. There is one great big advantage to using {{'''Notes'''}} and {{'''Bibliography'''}} in that it makes the Table of Contents a bit smaller by "tucking" everything into the References section, getting away from the folks who have problems in having a TOC at all. There are also people who want to get rid of infoboxes, use of sub-sections, headings and don't even like the use of anything but the @#$%&^) citation templates even though they have no idea what they are actually inputting and create just more "garbage in, garbage out" problems like the old computer axiom warned against. I will, however, as per your suggestion, limit the changes to the references section to only the articles I edit that are not in the Wiki-aircraft field. I've lately gone on a film kick, and that's where I spend most of my time. BTW, howsthingsmituhealthwise? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. On health, I'm slowly losing some weight, which is good. :) - BilCat (talk)

Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallion

Greetings BilCat, regarding the incident update that I posted and was removed, should I add a "Incidents" header to make it "Accidents and Incidents." If so, will the post then be valid? Thanks! The1LieLui (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

No, because it's still really just a minor incident. We could fill up aircraft articles with such minor incidents, so there have to be some limits on what is added. If you want to discuss the reasons in detail, it's probably better to post on the article's talk page so other editors can participate. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

FFA P-16

Text of the header: "Deze gebruiker heeft misbruik gemaakt van sokpoppen. Er is een blokkade opgelegd conform de richtlijnen om bijdragen met de betreffende accounts en/of ip-adressen tegen te gaan."

English: "This user has abused sockpuppets. There is a blockade imposed in accordance to the guidelines to prevent further edits by those accounts or IP-addresses."

Happy editing. The Banner talk 00:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Virginia Class Submarine

Okay did not know that. Learned something new. Thanks. Must ahve been there when I posted. Weird how instant users will correct administrative something. Always seems like someone is there.68.198.20.98 (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I have over 14,000 articles on my watchlist, so when one of them is changed it shows that, and I'm logged in right now. Some users also patrol the recent changes list so they can know what's just been changed, even when it isn't on their watchlist. - BilCat (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

So thats how its works. Did not know about the watch lists but makes sense since easier to edit. Very interesting. Always wondered why editors swooped in so fast. Thats a lot of articles 14,000. Lot of work.68.198.20.98 (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Having a watchlist is a benefit of being a registered user, and can be viewed as long as one is logged in. Yeah 14,000 is quite a lot, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to over 4.8 million articles on English Wikipedia. - BilCat (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Revert on infobox.

Hey the revert you made causes the infobox to continue to error out and display improperly the easiest way to fix is to switch to the American Football one with an adjustment on the Cup Wins so it displays properly to the end user... I dont want to start an edit war, so if you know a better way to fix it go ahead. Epistemophiliac (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

No, the improperly placed delete tag caused the errors. - BilCat (talk) 03:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You missed one! And no, I'm not fixing it. - BilCat (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I did think that, but I figured a brilliant template guru such as yourself went offline right after you made your changes, or you would have checked to make sure it was working. - BilCat (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Bell X-1

Bilcat, sorry about the lack of good faith, it seems that we had some sort of edit conflict that deleted my entire new section in the X-1's talk history, please don't hesitate to join in with your input on the X-1 here.

No worries, I understand. Just wanted you to know it wasn't intentional on my part, so thanks. :) Take care. - BilCat (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Consolidated B-24 Liberator

Keep an eye on this article, I have a suspicion that the recent, massive edits are all copy-viols. I had done some checks on exact wording and found where the sources came from, all unattributed. Quite a few typos and spelling variations were also involved. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought some of those edits were hinky, but was sure what it was. Now I know, so thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Now it's the North American B-25 Mitchell and Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress articles as well, under new anon identities. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Frank Wren

I added an infobox and image, which I've seen that you've noticed (thanks), but I cropped the image further before uploading it to Commons under the CC-BY-2.0 license, Flickr version. The cropped image seems to have confused the Flickr Review bot. Do you have the permissions at Commons to handle it, or know someone who does? Vycl1994 (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have permissions at Commons, and I don't know what's does. User:Denniss was an admin on Commons, so he might know. - BilCat (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It's best to upload the uncropped version first, wait for review bot, then crop it. I've reviewed your file.--Denniss (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Honeywell

Hey BilCat, I noticed you recently reverted Cacatiannico's edits to Honeywell's infobox. First of all, thanks for keeping the process honest! It makes me happy to know that editors like yourself actively maintain Wikipedia's standards. That said, his numbers were actually correct. I don't mean to suggest you've done anything wrong--I have a COI with Honeywell, so I've looked at their annual report here and cited the same figures in my sandbox here. If you've got a moment, could you help me get the current information up? --FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I'll take a look tonight or tomorrow, and get the figures updated. - BilCat (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello :)

Hi, i came here for your help in an ongoing dispute. an editor seems to be trying to promote HAL AMCA,DRDO AURA,INS Vishal etc in his or her recent edits. the editor (M.srihari) is giving some citation but they are either improper or outdated. i explained everything related to the changes i made to his edit yet still the person continues to revert my removal of improperly cited or non- referenced info. major changes were made in dates of launch of air carrier ins vishal without any citation etc.i just wanted a very experienced like you to take a look at those changes made.please take a look at m.srihari's contribution whenever you are free. thank you :).Nicky mathew (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed. I try to avoid such POV users if I can, as they usually aren't willing to listen at all. Some can be reformed, but most have (or feign) such poor English skills that communication is difficult. (Users from many countries have these problems, not just India, even the UK or US!) It's probably best to post something at WT:MILHIST, where a broad range of editors can get involved, including some admins. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

thank you for your support and i really appreciate your help and support.Nicky mathew (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem. - BilCat (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys. I ran across this editor on the supercarrier page. He seems unwilling to engage on the talk page. As you no doubt are aware he has earned himself a 24 hour block for his efforts. Hopefully that will serve as a shot across his bows - we'll see. Thanks both of you for your help on that page as I had reached my 3RR limit. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

now the editor is ready to talk and engaged in one now. he is fighting over obviously and well cited information. it looks more like revenge edits now.see Talk:Vikrant-class aircraft carrier heading Number of planned aircraft carriers.please take a look if possible.Nicky mathew (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

While he is discussing on talk ages now, he is still edit reverting without waiting for a consensus. I reverted him on Air-cushioned landing craft, and he discussed it at Talk:Air-cushioned landing craft#Citation, but still reverted without supplying a source that addressed his claim. - BilCat (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

In this page Talk:Vikrant-class aircraft carrier i think they manage to reach consensus and no changes were made in that page although as a result another page Arihant follow-on submarine is currently being considered for deletion (AFD). my advice is to talk to him very politely and explain everything with some citations if possible, and also thank him for his good faith edit. i know this is not how we usually handle things but if you dont want to waste days arguing with this guy please try doing so. if you don't mind can you move this discussion to archive after reading, last time this happened then this User talk:Nicky mathew heading Regarding edit disputes, i just don't want to explain my discussion with other wikipedians to this guy again and waste my time, believe me he will ask a explanation if he saw this discussion.Nicky mathew (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello :)

Hi, i came here for your help in an ongoing dispute. an editor seems to be trying to promote HAL AMCA,DRDO AURA,INS Vishal etc in his or her recent edits. the editor (M.srihari) is giving some citation but they are either improper or outdated. i explained everything related to the changes i made to his edit yet still the person continues to revert my removal of improperly cited or non- referenced info. major changes were made in dates of launch of air carrier ins vishal without any citation etc.i just wanted a very experienced like you to take a look at those changes made.please take a look at m.srihari's contribution whenever you are free. thank you :).Nicky mathew (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed. I try to avoid such POV users if I can, as they usually aren't willing to listen at all. Some can be reformed, but most have (or feign) such poor English skills that communication is difficult. (Users from many countries have these problems, not just India, even the UK or US!) It's probably best to post something at WT:MILHIST, where a broad range of editors can get involved, including some admins. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

thank you for your support and i really appreciate your help and support.Nicky mathew (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem. - BilCat (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys. I ran across this editor on the supercarrier page. He seems unwilling to engage on the talk page. As you no doubt are aware he has earned himself a 24 hour block for his efforts. Hopefully that will serve as a shot across his bows - we'll see. Thanks both of you for your help on that page as I had reached my 3RR limit. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

now the editor is ready to talk and engaged in one now. he is fighting over obviously and well cited information. it looks more like revenge edits now.see Talk:Vikrant-class aircraft carrier heading Number of planned aircraft carriers.please take a look if possible.Nicky mathew (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

While he is discussing on talk ages now, he is still edit reverting without waiting for a consensus. I reverted him on Air-cushioned landing craft, and he discussed it at Talk:Air-cushioned landing craft#Citation, but still reverted without supplying a source that addressed his claim. - BilCat (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

In this page Talk:Vikrant-class aircraft carrier i think they manage to reach consensus and no changes were made in that page although as a result another page Arihant follow-on submarine is currently being considered for deletion (AFD). my advice is to talk to him very politely and explain everything with some citations if possible, and also thank him for his good faith edit. i know this is not how we usually handle things but if you dont want to waste days arguing with this guy please try doing so. if you don't mind can you move this discussion to archive after reading, last time this happened then this User talk:Nicky mathew heading Regarding edit disputes, i just don't want to explain my discussion with other wikipedians to this guy again and waste my time, believe me he will ask a explanation if he saw this discussion.Nicky mathew (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

City of Canberra

G'day, there are two preserved aircraft in Australia named City of Canberra; the other one's a Boeing 707. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

But only one has an article. We don't generally pre-disambiguate, and I've added a hatnote to the museum article. - BilCat (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Rollback right restored

Hi, In response to your email I've restored your access to the rollback tool. Given that you have a lengthy and postive track record on Wikipedia which has continued since the tool was removed last December, have re-reviewed Wikipedia:Rollback and provided assurances that you'll take care in using the tool (defaulting to reverts with edit summaries where there's doubt), I don't see any reason why other admins wouldn't restore it if a request had been lodged at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will do my best to be responsible using rollback rights. - BilCat (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

IP editor

OK as it was continuing I've posted at ANI and reverted the last entry. WCM_email 22:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't use ANI enough to feel comfortable with it, so I greatly appreciate the assistance. - BilCat (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

And thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks sorted now, no worries mate. WCM_email 17:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Rogers Centre

Please have a look at Talk:Rogers Centre#First line. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Bangalore has been renamed to Bengaluru

Hi, Bangalore has been renamed as Bengaluru and is official. If you have doubt refer your own Bangalore wiki page. I do not understand why you have renamed it. I kindly request you to name it as per the Governments order. Also, Kindly note that BBMP is not Bruhut Bangalore Mahanagara Palike but instead it is Bruhut Bengaluru Mahanaga Palike. Kindly visit the website of BBMP and cross check it and approve my changes.

</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVINHSN (talk • contribs) 18:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Such a major change would requires sources from multiple world-wide news agencies. There is no rush; if true, there is time to make the change. We are an encyclopedia, not a news source. There is no deadline Scr★pIron^IV 18:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello :)

IDIOT!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Kanzai Frakfurt (talk • contribs) 17:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for introducing yourself, but I was already aware of that fact about you! :) - BilCat (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Buran article spelling

Hi, so what are we going to do with the page title for the "Buran program(me)"? I do not naturally use the spelling employed by our cousins in the New World, however the bulk of said article seems to be using American English spellings. It therefore seemed wise to adapt the title to match the style of the article body. (I don't have the patience to trawl through the text of the whole article and turn everything into British spellings.) What can be done? Having the title in one style and the article in another doesn't seem to be good either. Regards Cyan22 (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe that it should be maintained as is. Buran program redirects to the correct article, and Buran is well disambiguated. The way I read WP:ENGVAR, the best bet for internal consistency is to have an editor skilled in the Queen's English proofread it, and perform what copyedit is required. Scr★pIron^IV 18:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Queen's English is the way forward, and has been since Mr Shakespeare of Stratford :-) Cyan22 (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The article is tagged as using British English, so that's why I reverted the move. This really needs to be discussed on the article's talk page to settle it one way or another. - BilCat (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

F-20 page reverts

Altitude not indicated for Mach 2. That needs to be, then proper conversions can be added. Please advise altitude for Mach 2 rating. Thank you. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Generally, it's from above 37,000 feet to the aircraft's ceiling. No aircraft can do Mach 2 at sea level, as the fastest is about Mach 1.3, and only a few can do that. - BilCat (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks. The speed of sound stabilizes at 36,000' at 573 knots (659.4 mph).[3] Mach 2 is then twice 659.4 miles (1,061.2 km), or 1318.8 mi/2122.4 km per hour. Rounded off, 1,319/2,122. Will insert with those figures.

Say, BilCat. You're basically Mr. Aircraft Articles here. Is there some appropriate way to add a notation on the Specifications template that maximum airspeed is calculated at elevations of 36,000' and above? I realize it can get complicated when the same line item pertains to subsonic aircraft with ceilings below 36,000 feet, as well as any Mach aircraft likewise, if any (I am not aware of any. Are you?). It would at least make it clear for Mach-rated aircraft. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure. You can ask at WT:AIR and get wider input on that problem. - 14:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, a potential can of worms. It would be helpful, though. Lacking any indication I opted for Mach 1 at sea level (rather than arbitrarily assuming any unspecified altitude); I hadn't realized that Mach 1 stabilized that low (i.e. 36,000'). Now I know...probably a thousand aircraft articles (read) and a hundred-plus edited in. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I realize I wasn't imagining things: the speed of sound only stabilizes around 660 mph for a 25,000' window between 40,000-65,000',[4] then goes up again, clear up to 200,000' before starting a drop-off. Regardless, I recognize that window is appropriate for the vast majority of Mach-rated aircraft. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Vandilism

You may want to look upt he definition of vandilism. Did i uncorrectly write something? Or obviously write a untrue fact? No. Ricky Williams played a few games and was injured his only CFL season so characterizing it as poor play is unjustified. There isn't even a reference to that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toeknee44 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Given your past history of questionable edits, I judged that you unexplained edit was "apparent" vandalism. Please realize that unexplained edits can be indistinguishable from vandalism, and explain your edits in the edit summary. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a DR/N request you may have interest in

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard under: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon#RCS_1.2F4_that_of_Rafale regarding a content dispute on the issue of Eurofighter Typhoon#Radar signature reduction features Mztourist (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Seeking assistance, again

Hey BilCat, sorry to bother you again. If you have the time, I was hoping you might be able to help review my proposed draft for Honeywell. It includes the updated financial figures, as well as a reorganized history section. I detailed the full changes on Talk:Honeywell, and my mentor Silver Seren has crossposted it to the NPOV noticeboard. However, no one has responded yet. If you could review it in full or even just in part, I'd be extremely grateful. As always, thanks for any help! --FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts on Advanced Turbine Engine Company?

Hi BilCat, hope you don't mind me reaching out, but I noticed that you'd contributed to the article on the Advanced Affordable Turbine Engine (AATE) program and I wanted to pick your brains on a related topic. Quite some time back, in 2009, when you were working on the AATE article, you redlinked Advanced Turbine Engine Company. I'm currently working as a consultant (strictly regarding Wikipedia) for ATEC, and I'm looking into creating an article for the company. There has been some good coverage of the company, enough, I believe, to create a concise, informative article. As well as media from when ATEC got the initial Army contract in 2008, there have been later reports on their progress with development and testing, and the company setting up operations in Huntsville. These links are just a few examples, to give you a sense of what's out there. As I say, my feeling is that the company meets WP:GNG and an article is possible, though it likely won't be very long. Before I dive in and make a draft to submit to AfC, I just wanted to check in with you and see if you agreed or if there's an aspect here I might have overlooked, especially since you edit heavily in this area, which is quite new to me. Thanks in advance for your thoughts! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 12:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a discussion that you may (or may not!) be interested in joining

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Eurofighter Typhoon regards Mztourist (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

For my sanity's sake, I'll sit this one out. At this point, there are enough other editors familiar with the case that I don't think I can contribute anything unique to the process. His non-neutral POV pushing is bordering on contentiousness, and given his similar issues on the Typhoon page in the past, I'm beginning to wonder he's more than a Typhoon fanboy. He may well end up with a indef ban in the future, as he shows no sign of reforming anytime soon, or even seeing the need for it. - BilCat (talk) 05:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree and completely understand your position. Thanks Mztourist (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

UAV Edits

You removed my edits for lacking a reliable citation, when there's no citation given to provide any of the information in that paragraph. Where's your evidence to support the information that's there and support your reversion? Reliable evidence, mind; journalists writing articles aren't necessarily authorities on a subject and can make mistakes. They do, in fact, and quite often. That's why you don't commonly find an industry expert referring to a UAV as a drone (though they sometimes call them by any number of other acronyms); while it was originally used for a target and today refers to something that flies without human intervention, the media has seen fit to hijack the term and apply it to everything that flies without a pilot. While I'm sure it doesn't count for much on Wikipedia, I'm a former UAS operator on the Raven and Shadow platforms and thus can claim some degree of expertise in the field.

I've provided a few links. You may peruse them at your leisure if you're interested in not helping to perpetuate a confusion in terminology. I'm unfortunately away from my previous computer, which had a bit more documentation on the subject, so we'll have to make do with what's available online. FM 3-04-155, http://www.edn.com/design/analog/4420167/2/The-unmanned-aircraft-system--UAS--Part-one--Not-a-drone, General Dempsey nattering on, some industry experts disputing the use of 'drone' for all UAS, and here, where they claim drones are simpler aircraft. 70.122.65.89 (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Remotely-piloted aircraft have been called drones since WWII, so it's not a recent thing. I will look over your sources, and see what's there. - BilCat (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Military of the CSA/CAF

Using your logic, should we link The Salvation Army to United States Army? There is no relationship, nor was there ever between the Commemorative Air Force and the CSA. The CAF's former name was very tongue-in-cheek. To link them is ridiculous. --rogerd (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Not the same. If it was called the Revolutionary Army, or Washington's Army, or something with some name connection, then perhaps you'd have a better point. But you can raise it n the talk page, and if there's a consensus to remove it, then fine. - BilCat (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Bell XLR-81-BA

You are using the wrong policy!! see:Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/page content#Naming--Petebutt (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's not an aircraft engine, but was used for missiles and rockets. Compare Reaction Motors XLR11, which was used on an aircraft, and RL10, which was used in rockets. - BilCat (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

no links in section titles.

If its a looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, used like a duck, its a platypus? The use of the semi-colon (;) as mark up is intended for definition lists (re Wiki_markup#Layout). Whilst it could be argued that the use in Quadcopter#Early_attempts is a group of five definition lists each with a single definition, it would not be obvious just looking at the article that this is the intention. Rather for all intents and purposes, these serve the purpose of bolded section titles, and should be treatedas such.--KTo288 (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I always understood that the problem with links in headings was that it made linking to them from other pages difficult. That's not an issue with bolded titles. - BilCat (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I never got round to why we don't link titles, just learnt the dogma that we don't. For me its now more an exercise in aesthetics and tradition than anything practical. It just looks and feels wrong.--KTo288 (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Star Spangled Banner

A friend and I were having an argument on what the lyrics to the song were, I didn't know that he edited it second time on my computer. I apologize for any inconvenience.81.157.87.123 (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Awarded to you for your untiring and industrious contributions. Please keep the good work up! Faizan (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Restored referenced info within 2 minutes, good job! Faizan (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

whoops

Regarding this diff [5] - whoops! I have an autoreplace function on my browser, and I forgot to exclude en.wikipedia.org from it, so it automatically replaced the profanity when I clicked to edit to add my comment. Whoops! My bad, and thank you for catching it. Red Slash 15:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem, it did seem out of character for you. Btw, the reason I added the arbitrary heading was that I was having difficulty finding posts in the middle of the section. I usually edit from a tablet, and finding the right post can be difficult. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Variants

Hi there, in my humble opinion you are denying readers relevant information even if there is not a link to the type(s) leading to what appears in the case of the F.5 to be a bias toward US aircraft design. Your views?80.229.34.113 (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The infobox field named "variants with their own articles" is for variants with their own articles, oddly enough. It isn't for variants that are covered in the same article. Those are covered in the article, and should be listed under the Variants section of the main text, as in the Hiro H1H article. I know the various variants of the early Felixstowe types can be confusing,but we only list those variants, or developments, that have their own articles in the infobox. The fact that those variants are American is really irrelevant. - BilCat (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore the PN-6 is a variant while those that followed are developments depending of cause on your definition of variant and development? From what's noted above it seems the F.5 article is lacking a para or expansion on the Gosport F.5 variants?80.229.34.113 (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

If I made a mistake on the PN-6, it's because I'm not familiar with those types, and I'm going on what is seen in those articles to explain it. A variant is a minimum-change version, while a development is more extensive. The difference isn't all that important, and might vary from article to article. Some variants have so much information that it would overwhelm the article if covered in one place, so they have their own articles. As to the Gosport F.5, it depends on if it was minimum-change version or more extensive, and how much information is available. You can start by adding info one the the Gosport F.5 to the Felixstowe F.5 article, citing reliable sources. If the information nis extensive,'m use the talk page to discuss splitting it to its own page. - BilCat (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

No mistake, I am going on the article as well and do not have enough in depth knowledge on the PN types after the PN-6 to state they are variants, but going on the appearance of the later PN types the influence of the F.5 can be seen. There is not much info on the Gosport F.5 variants so an expansion on the Gosport Flying Boat para would suffice.80.229.34.113 (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I'm the one who's been editing the destroyers & cruisers. Hit me up when you can so we may discuss this in a civilized way. Battleship Sailor (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. There is a discussion already at Talk:Cruiser#South Korean and Japanese "Cruisers". That would be a good place for you to start and please cite reliable sources to support your claims. - BilCat (talk) 05:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

F20

Why? John greatorex (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Because it's not a link to an article. Did you mistype/misspell it? - BilCat (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

If I create a web site will be allowed ? Is official lunch in September.

Technically, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web site host. Your article would have to meet Wikipedia's standards for an article. See Wikipedia:Your first article for more information on how to meet those requirements. - BilCat (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

While/whilst

In formal writing I usually use whilst, but I accept that American usage differs on this point which I didn't know. If the original editor had given an explanation I would have left it alone.As it was it just looked like a change for no reason. Oh well. No harm done! - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem, and no offense meant in the change on my part. I agree the original user should have given a better explanation. Note we Americans don't generally use "amongst" either, in case you run across that one in your editing. - BilCat (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No offense taken. After your revert I did a bit of research and found the amongst thing myself. <grin> Language variations can be tricky. We live and learn. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Use of deflist markup and national flags for bulleted lists

Hi,

I see you reverted my edit at Piaggio P.180 Avanti‎‎ where I removed national flag icons and MOS:DEFLIST formatting from some bulleted lists. My understanding of the discussion and linked policies/guidelines at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#List_of_aircraft_of_X_Air_Force.2FMilitary_table_formats.2C_especially_as_related_to_images was that national flags should not be used in such cases, and at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Accessibility_of_lists was that deflist formatting should not be used for bulleted lists. Forgive me, but I do not seem able to find the WP:AIR and WP:MILHIST guidelines which you say contradict these two points. Please could let me know which they are, preferably by adding your wisdom to the linked discussions? This might help me to understand your description of my edit as "nonsensical", which I find unnecessarily confrontational and perjorative since it was, to my knowledge, perfectly intelligible. Thank you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Where did I call your edits "nonsensical"? I don't remember writing that. - BilCat (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Another misreading by me, my sincere apologies. You wrote "nonconsensual". I have amended my comment on the talk page accordingly. I'm not doing well this evening, time I signed off and went to bed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I figured that you had misread "nonconsensual", but I wasn't certain myself! No worries, I sometimes edit beyond my own bedtime, to my own peril. Take care, and sleep well. - BilCat (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Help

I think the flag icons on Swedish American violates WP:INFOBOXFLAG. I would delete it myself, but it seems like it's been there for a while. I'm not sure when consensus reached that flag icons were unnecessary in infoboxes, but it seems that flag icons used to be common in the infoboxes back in the old days. 172.56.21.197 (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver

Hi, the image that I moved to the lede is much larger than the previous lede image, and illustrates the aircraft's ability to float on water. The new image is superior in every way that I feel is important. Can you explain why you feel otherwise? Thanks, --Pine^✉ 05:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The image change was discussed previously on the article's talk page. Make your case their please. - BilCat (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Uaat Vandalism

Hi, I notice this user user:Uaat always engage in lot of edit war. also Vandalism some article about Taiwan/Republic of China, please stop this guys, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Цзинго (talk • contribs) 11:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Typhoon Performance (vs Su-30MKi)

I have set up a talk entry where we can discuss

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eurofighter_Typhoon#Performance_.28vs_Su-30MKi.29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsavian (talk • contribs) 13:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll look at it later today as I have time. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment

An editor has asked for a discussion on the deprecation of Template:English variant notice. Since you've had some involvement with the English variant notice template, you might want to participate in the discussion if you have not already done so.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

A-N radio navigation

In the Airway (aviation) article, I've taken the liberty to support your case regarding the remark about the A-N early radio navigation system. The IP-user seems to tend to revert-warring, though, shouldn't protection or semi-protection of the page be requested? All the best, Jan olieslagers (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I too have taken a liberty, I changed the word defined to delineated: I think this better fits the context. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both. The whole thing was quite odd. - BilCat (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Removing "aviation"

(diff) Why do you think we should link to the top level service? I think we should keep a link to army aviation ebecause "X Army" articles are big articles and the readers may not be able to find the corresponding army aviation article for that country easilly; while it's easy to reach the article for a country's army from the article for the country's army aviation unit. --Z 21:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not just Iran; we don't do it for the others either. It's pretty much standard practice in aircraft articles. - BilCat (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Missouri MGS Removal

Hi,

I just wanted a little more information on why you removed the Metal Gear Solid 4 section from the USS Missouri page. You cited a useful style guide page but that didn't help, because the use of the Missouri in the game is anything but "trivial". Its place in history is a crucial plot point - it's not as if it's just some generic WW2 era gun that gets used or that it's just one ship used in a big naval battle. I also cited the game itself as a source, as I was previously advised. Do you think a more specific source is needed? I can probably find one, but I believe the game itself should suffice.

I'm keen to get that info included so any help you can provide to help me meet the necessary standards would be great.

Thanks TheMPC (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not about Missouri being significant IN the game, but the game being significant TO Missouri. Pop culture.sections aren't supposed to be lists of every mention or appearance. They're only supposed to cover major appearances where the item (ship, aircraft, weapon) is actually used in filming, or where something else plays that role. For the most part, that excludes games. For a game to be mentioned, it needs a reliable secondary source that cite the game as being significant to the item, so much so that when an item is mentioned, people immediately connect a film or game to the item. For any further discussion, please use the Missouri talk page. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

talk:Pisa International Airport

Hello! Would you mind taking part in this disscussion (talk:Pisa International Airport) about a new charter section in Pisa International Airport.
The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't generally do much with airport articles. You might post a note at WT:AIRPORTS to get more import. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Reply to comment on my Talk page

Having read your comments, you're saying we shouldn't correct spelling regardless?! No matter what the situation? What about something like replacing "Yugoslavia" with "Bosnia-Herzegovina"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble Korhedron (talk • contribs) 18:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk pages are not articles. Your "corrections" were made to Talk:Soko G-4 Super Galeb, not Soko G-4 Super Galeb. In most cases,we don't edit the talk page comments of others, nor do we remove notices such as the one about the deleted images,though we can move older comments to an archive page. The only exception is a user's own talk page,where we can remove any comments, with a few exceptions such as block notices. - BilCat (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: FS1

I think you missed something

In 2015, the network began re-branding as FS1, beginning with a new wordmark logo on a redesigned ticker, and in September 2015, phasing out verbal references to "Fox Sports 1" and adopting the new logo in other places. A Fox Sports representative that this re-branding was meant to align the branding of Fox Sports 1 with its commonly-used abbreviation, and to streamline the channel's marketing among other Fox Sports channels. The previous logo will still be used as an alternate logo."Fox Sports 1 beginning shift to new "FS1″ logo this week". Awful Announcing. Retrieved 4 September 2015.

ViperSnake151  Talk  19:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Please give me time to respond on the article's talk page. I'm not a newbie, and I do know what I am doing. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

It always helps me ;) Irondome (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Planform for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Planform is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planform until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Sir BilCat, I am pretty new to Wikipedia so I humbly admit that I have committed a mistake. I am sorry, I am ready to use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. - Deepanshu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with with this established consensus and after reading it, I found it reasonable and disciplined. Thanks for your guidance BilCat.-Deepanshu —Preceding undated comment added 14:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. - BilCat (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up

Hey, BC. I nominated the Ole Miss-Tennessee article for AfD, after the creator deleted the PROD and endorsement. I thought you would want to participate in the discussion, given your previous interest. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

aircraft carrier-egypt

if u says so. ok :).Aircraft_carrier_-_Egypt what do you think of this answer and can u add or correct me if i am wrong anywhere.thank you. Nicky mathew (talk)

Hello I'm Jamaican

I'm simply UPDATING my city's page who are you BTW? Wildboy876 (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sourcs for the changes you're making. Just cite where you're getting the numbers, as per Wikipedia policy. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz Stadium move

I see that something is going on with the Mercedes-Benz Stadium page. Why was it moved to Falcons Stadium? The name is Mercedes-Benz Stadium as is clearly indicated by the sources as well as team officials. Just wanted to know what's going on... Jdavi333 (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It was moved with the edit summary of "The Saints already have this name". Evidently someone confused this with Mercedes-Benz Superdome, and had a knee-jerk reaction without bothering to read the sources. It's possible vandalism, but someone really could be this ignorant. I've tagged the correct name for deletion by an admin, as the user made edits ti the page after making the move.

Got it. Thanks. Jdavi333 (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem. - BilCat (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

An admin has moved it back. If it happens again in the next week or 2, I'll request page move protection. - BilCat (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit

Hi, please see my response at User talk:8.25.196.25 (not sure if you'll get notified on my edit to that page). I plan to re-do my change if I don't hear back (and if I happen to think of it). 8.25.196.25 (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as registered user, I have a watchlist that let's me know when changes have been made to your talk page. I'll be offline for a few hours, so I check later tonight, if I have time. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Meteor struck

Truth to tell, it doesn't feel familiar--beyond the usual stubborn adds of uncited junk, which is pretty common... Cmt on the sock claim next. (That deserves a kicking.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Blue-water navy

Hi, I want to inform you that User:Barjimoa has recently done a lot of additions and modifications to Blue-water navy, Kindly view and check the edits done recently and make reasonable changes. Thanks. -Deepanshu M. (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I changed it a lot of times (sorry for that) cause I was thinking how to put the sourced informations in a good way. At the end of the day, I just created a sub-section called "Regional blue water navies".Barjimoa (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

just saying..so you know where to look. Barjimoa (talk) 09:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. I am not sure if I am happy with those changes either BilCat. Firstly, there was no consensus, and secondly, the only source Barjimoa gave is questionable at best. The source merely refers to a PLAN (Chinese) categorisation of navies, and is not the independent opinion of the actual writer/s of the publication. For obvious reasons, we would like to avoid using such material. Instead, the article thus far follows WP:THIRDPARTY: "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

Barjimoas edits, while made in good-faith, need consensus and a significant improvement in terms of its sourcing before they can be accepted.Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Fa 223 passengers

Why do you remove my sourced addition about passenger capacity to Focke-Achgelis Fa 223?--88.81.124.1 (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't remove any sourced additions. - BilCat (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You claimed my addition was unsourced. However, it did have a source. What was your problem with it?--88.81.124.1 (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It was unsourced when I removed it. - BilCat (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hidden category

What is your problem in adding a maintenance hidden category to an article ? Anthere (talk)

oh. I just saw that you self reverted. It was not outlined in the alert. No problem. Take care. Anthere (talk)

Yeah, I accidentally reverted. Sorry. - BilCat (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yokosuka D4Y

Dear BilCat,

In a way this is funny. Usually I have a series of items when I do an edit and they are from several sources and places and I have to take great care.

This one was so obvious, and was double referenced in other WIKI pages, that I put this in as an "automatic"...I mean, why doubt something that is stated as fact on two other WIKI pages? In addition, since the Japanese acquired licenses from both Heinkel for the He-118 and Daimler-Benz for the DB 601, there must be a ton of historical verification.

Perhaps you did not realize that the "Aichi Atsuta" is the name of another WIKI webpage? There, under the heading about their acquiring a license was a nice simple paragraph that was a perfect lead in, so I did a cut-and-paste, except for editing the word "also" (since the license for the DB 601 was not already discussed).

You will also find under the WIKI page on the Heinkel He 118 (lousy photo of the He 118, doesn't give a real perspective of the aircraft, by the bye), the fact that they sold a license to the Japanese and that the He 118 formed the basis of the Yokosuka D4Y. It is mentioned both at the lead-in and in the body of the text where the two models sold to Japan were given the name/number "DXHe".

Guess I need to register...one of these days.

James French — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.88.42.119 (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I checked both of those articles before removing your additions. Neither mention is properly cited, so I have no idea where that information comes from. WP is not self-refenencing, so all claims need to cite reliable published sources. I tagged those mentions as needing citations. - BilCat (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Military dates

Hmm, I see what you're saying. Thank you for pointing that out. I wasn't aware that there was an exception in the rules for military articles. Personally, I don't think that exception should exist, but you are absolutely correct that I should seek broader input from the editing community on this issue. I will refrain from changing dates in any military articles until I do so. My apologies. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem. It can be confusing. However, I doubt you'll get the DMY format changed, as, from previous discussions, it appears to have broad support from most former and active US military personnel who edit on WP. But consensus can change, so you can try to get the guidelines changed and see what happens. Thanks. - BilCat (talk)

I'll fix the rest of them. You shouldn't have to clean up my mess. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. :) - BilCat (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Israeli HH-65s

Hi, regarding that undo. Israel currently operates the AS565, but prior to receiving the Panther it operated several HH-65s. That squadron article needs expansion. See commons:Category:Eurocopter HH-65 (Israeli Air Force) and commons:Category:Eurocopter Panther (Israeli Air Force). Poliocretes (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't have accees to your source, so I can't comment in what it says, but it seems unlikely that Israel had any HH-65 (SA 366 G1) Dolphins built in the US, as too my knowledge, they were never exported anywhere. I seem to recall looking into this before, and Israel used SA/AS 365 Dauphins from France, which some sources might have called HH-65s, but they aren't. This would probably better be discussed on the HH-65 talk page. - BilCat (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

continued on article talk page. Poliocretes (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Grumman F8F Bearcat

Note this passage from the article: There is considerable debate among sources as to whether or not the Focke Wulf Fw 190 influenced the design of the G-38. It is known that test pilots from Grumman examined and flew a captured Fw 190 in England in early 1943, and the G-38 has a number of design notes in common with the Fw 190 that the Hellcat did not, especially in the cowling and landing gear arrangements. However, no definitive evidence has been presented that these tests had a direct input to the G-58 design. Initial design of the Fw 190 began in 1938, the F8F in 1943, only five years apart; in retrospect the F6F design goes back to 1941, The Bearcat followed so closely on the Hellcat, that both actually saw service in World War II. That's why, technically, the FW 190 and F8F are in the same era. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Per note at top of page, article issues are best discussed on its talk page,not here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bzuk (talk • contribs)

File:British Gannet COD.4 on USS Randolph (CVS-15) in 1966.jpg

Hi, in 2013, you asked me for a photo of a Gannet COD.4. Now I found one, but only of a part of the plane. Better than nothing! I hope you are well. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, you are relentless in pursuit of rare PD photos. - BilCat (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Russian Aerospace Forces

Does this edit make sense to you? Add any value? I think the editor is unaware that 1RR applies at that article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC) ... nice flag though, haha

(t/p/s) It appears legit. The rename is cited in the lede of the Russian Air Force article. Tass reported it. Seems to come in effect August last. Irondome (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree, but we've still been listing Russian Air Force as the service, as it still exits, and probably will still be used in sources for a long time. - BilCat (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but without an article, or article re-name yet, it seems unnecessary bureaucratic pedantry. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Someone has created a redirect Russian Aerospace Forces. Dunno when. Irondome (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

It was created on 1 October this year. - Ahunt (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

So is that an improvement? If Russian Air Force still exists, I don't really see the value, especially in that edit at 2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The sources I've seen state August 1, 2015. A user tried to create an article at Russian Aerospace Forces, but aside from the Lead, it was mostly a copy of the Russian Air Force page. - BilCat (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz Stadium

Glad to see the editors came to the appropriate decision. If you're paying millions of $$ for naming rights, you earn the right to officially call it whatever you like. Otherwise, what's to stop readers from renaming the Washington Redskins to Washington NFL. Hopefully there won't be a similar battle brewing over the NBA arenas(American Airlines), the NHL arenas (Rogers) or the MLS stadiums (Toyota). Roberto221 (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. The more it went on, the more obvious it became that socks were involved. What the sockmaster doesn't realize is that his obsessions have resulted in even more users becoming aware of his tactics now, and that we'll be on the lookout for similar shenanigans in the future. I've run into similar users in the past, and it's amazing that they think they can get away with it. I guess it becomes a game for some of them, but they do all eventually get found out. - BilCat (talk) 07:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

What's a sock? What's SOAP? Roberto221 (talk) 08:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

A sock is short for sockpuppet, as explained at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. SOAP refers to WP:SOAPBOX, which basically means to use Wikipedia as a soapbox (per the Wikipedia article), a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. It includes using WP to promote personal opinions, or to Right Great Wrongs,both of which apply to what the user was doing about the stadium name. Wikipedia editors use a lot of shortcuts and abbreviations to refer to policies and guidelines, and it takes a while to learn them. Most editors try to include links to those guidelines, and following the links I've posted here will take you to the relevant pages. - BilCat (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Honeywell

Hi BilCat, I hope you're in good health. You helped me update some figures for Honeywell awhile back (I had and still have a COI). As of today (Nov 11) the lede has been outdated for anywhere from 2-8 years in its information. Would you agree it is about time for an update?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry it's taken me a few days to reply. Just post a detailed explanation of your sources on the talk page. I'll look over them, but as long as you're citing reliable sources, it shouldn't be a problem. - BilCat (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I have an updated version of the lede in my sandbox here. The specific references for the lede are below:

• "Honeywell International, Inc. 2014 Annual Report, Form 10-K, Filing Date Feb 14, 2015". Honeywell.com. Retrieved August 21, 2014.
• Krauskopf, Lewis (14 July 2014). "Honeywell to merge turbocharger business into aerospace unit". Reuters. Retrieved 14 October 2014.
• "Honeywell 2013 Annual Report". Honeywell Annual Reports. Honeywell International. 31 March 2014. p. 13. Retrieved 14 October 2014.
• "Fortune 500 Ranking 2014". money.cnn.com. Retrieved May 11, 2013.
• "Edgar Online SEC Filings FY 2007". Yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com. Retrieved September 13, 2011.

Thanks for the help!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey BilCat, just wanted to follow up with you. Hope you're doing well and had a good holiday.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Two unrelated questions

1) I had generally seen all countries linked in firearm (and other) infoboxes. Should I stop doing so? 2) Is there a way to check on whether a certain template is being used within another template? I'm specifically interested in the "flag" template being used in the "firearm" template, but I'm sure it could be useful elsewhere. I saw you cleaning that up on another page and wondered if you had stumbled across the problem in your normal editing or if you had some sort of tool to flag potentially problematic pages.

Thanks! Faceless Enemy (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Faceless Enemy (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

(1) The MOS wonks don't like certain common words, United States or United Kingdom among them, being overlinked. Sometimes I delink them, sometimes not.

(2) I'm not certain there's an easy way to do that, or even a hard one. I usually just stumble across them, sometimes using the see also sections of other firearm articles, as I did today. - BilCat (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

XB-15

Bill, I removed "in Chile" since I think Chilean EQ pretty much explains that, but I don't feel strongly. It looks like we travel in the same circles, so why sweat the small stuff. I'm OK with your revert. Best regards! --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's "1939 Chillán earthquake", referring to the city of Chillán, or I wouldn't have reverted it. I did double-check that first to make sure it wasn't a misspelling of Chile. I watchlist a LOT of aircraft-related articles (most of them except for ultralights, paragliders, and homebuilts). - BilCat (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh you are right. No worries. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Americans Talk Page

Please join me when you can at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Americans#New_Heading_for_section_for_.22White_and_European_Americans.22 Thank you. Jeffgr9 (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been a little busy, but I'll try to get to it tonight or tomorrow. - BilCat (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!! Jeffgr9 (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

THANKS (and apology)

You recently corrected a heading (===Civilian===) on the Bell 206 page, which I had corrupted during a previous edit. First: thanks for catching the error. Second: although the edit history shows that I made the change, I don't remember when or why I would have done that - and I apologize to you and to the world for the egregious error. As the soldier would say to his sergeant, "No excuse, sir." --Spray787 (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No worries, we all make mistakes, and this one is quite minor, especially compared to some of the editing boo-boos I've made on WP! - BilCat (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

R. J Mitchell quote

(Not sure if this is the correct way to send a message but here goes) With reference to your (correct) reversion on the R. J Mitchell page. My copy of Jeffery Quill's autobiography "Spitfire, A Test Pilot's Story" on Page 102 quotes R.J Mitchell as saying "Jeffery, if anyone tries to tell you something about an aeroplane which is so damn complicated that you can't understand it, you can take it from me it's all balls." KreyszigB (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

DeHavilland Mosquito

I am a fan of active voice. Strunk & White. Think about it. 19:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Then rewrite the sentence to use active voice. Using the wrong tense doesn't help anything. As far as using active voice, passive voice is recognized by many grammarians as more suitable for certain types of writings, including encyclopedic texts. Merriam-Webster. - BilCat (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

u just removed thumb sizings from the article on "Indian Army"

hey bro... u just removed thumb sizings from the article on indian army ... well these sizings r actuly necessary coz in their absence some pics can appear too large n some can appear too small on the article page. im not reverting ur edit , hope ul do it urself. in case u disagree, plz reply to me on my talk page. thanks.Humanweb (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Humanweb: Per WP:THUMBSIZE:

"Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width. In most cases upright=scaling factor should be used, thereby respecting the user's base preference (which may have been selected for that user's particular devices). Where px is used, the resulting image should usually be no more than 500 pixels tall and no more than 400 pixels wide, for comfortable display on the smallest devices "in common use" (though this may still cause viewing difficulties on some unusual displays)." (Emphasis in original)

- BilCat (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Footnotes a mess

Sugar Bowl Ski Resort Is there anybody who fixes inline note issues? I'm all thumbs and out of practice. Best regrads! --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Eeeeeek!! That is quite a mess. I don't know of anyone right off, but you might ask around at one of the major projects. I usually go to WT:MILHIST, as they have a broad range of editors there. Obviously it's not related to the project itself, but if there's a another large project you frequent, you might try there. - BilCat (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Emily DiDonato image

The image was taken from a video from the Love Youtube channel which has a CC-BY 3.0 license provided for it if you look here and since the image was uploaded at commons they deal with it being "likely free" or not and this one I recently uploaded from the same channel passed. To see others that have passed and are awaiting to be reviewed from the same channel see here. Naue7 (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	from F-16 Viper
	I hope you have a merry Christmas, and happy new year! F-16 Viper (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, BC

And may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

About the recent confusions in Antonov An-12

Hello BilCat, sorry for the recent confusions in the article Antonov An-12.. Reverting your corrections wasn't my intention, rather it was just a carelessness on my part. And was caused when I clicked 'edit' at this diff. My bad. Cheers—UY Scuti ^Talk 04:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

It's OK, things like that happen, no worries. Merry Christmas. - BilCat (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Rafales for Qatar

Hi, I see that you restored the Qatar order to the Dassault Rafale article, on the basis that once a firm order is made the user becomes noteworthy (even though no examples have yet been delivered, never mind worked up to operational status). I assume you know what you are doing, but would you feel able to point me to the guideline for that? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and while I am here:

Season's greetings

All the best for the festive season and new year.
— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)As a complete aside I'm still utterly baffled at how after the wild success of the Mirage family Dassault has made such an utter hash of marketing Rafale... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Waning French national influence in the EU era? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Back on topic, I have now started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Infobox and primary users. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I had a busy Saturday due to a family Christmas dinner. I've responded at WTAIR. As to BR's Rafale. question,there's probably not an easy answer. Part of it is the French habit of insisting its aircraft designs be selected in many European military competitions or development efforts, notably in the Fiat G.91 program. The French pulled out of the Eurofighter program primarily because Dassault's design was passed over in favor of basing the Eurofighter on the British Aerospace EAP. Partly, this was because the French Navy wanted a carrier-capable fighter design, and didn't want to buy a US design such as the F/A-18. So, in making the Rafale design able talk be adapted for carrier use, the Rafale is more expensive than the Typhoon, which puts Dassault at a disadvantage. The Mirages were relatively inexpensive and uncomplicated, which made them attractive to smaller nations, and comparative with Soviet fighters for the Third World market. I'm sure there are other factors too, but price is probably the big one.

No problems. Funnily enough I too was busy with dinner on Christmas day. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

At risk of outstaying my welcome, in an off-wiki conversation it was pointed out to me that the Saab JAS 39 Gripen is, like the Mirage, single-engined. This makes it a lot cheaper even than Typhoon, never mind Rafale. It is also doing better in its export sales. Sounds a bit closer to the Mirage market. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the single engine is part of what made the Mirages relatively inexpensive and less complicated, and certainly applies to the Gripen also. - BilCat (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Qaher-313

Actually there is preciously little evidence development ever started. - Ahunt (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I know, as with most projects announced by Iran. Have you seen my parody on Iran's tendency to label "improvements" of American aircraft as new developments, and then deny that they made unlicensed upgrades? - BilCat (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

"Aircrafts"... - Ahunt (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a "direct quote". - BilCat (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is. It has that scent of authenticity to it! - Ahunt (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It does indeed seem that the Q313 will go down in history as notable, but only for the dog-and-pony show surrounding it! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

True. My satire/parody was written about 8 years ago, but still fits the pattern quite well, as the Q-313 was revealed in 2013. I just need to "borrow" a few quotes to add "authenticity". - BilCat (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Well that does show that they are becoming far too predictable. - Ahunt (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Maiden flight R-4

Hello BilCat, about the date of the first flight of the R-4.

The official Sikorsky archives pages state that the first flight took place on January 14th, not 13th. http://www.sikorskyarchives.com/S-47.php

So do various other rotary flight history pages. Example: http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/sik_r-4.php

Or the Smithonian news desk, http://newsdesk.si.edu/snapshot/sikorsky-xr-4-helicopter (The actual machine sits there in the Smithonian)

What is Your source for the 13th?

Best

prolaroid— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prolaroid (talk • contribs)

I've found and added published reliable sources for the 14 January 1942 date. In the future, you need to actually cite your sources when making changes. - BilCat (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I will keep that in mind. Thank You.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prolaroid (talk • contribs)

Also, Aviastar isn't considered a reliable source, as it uses copyvio material and I'm not certain the Sikorsky Archives are considered reliable either, though it may be. - BilCat (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I'd say that the Sikorsky Archives are probably "RS for factual statements, not for notability/qualatitive statements" akin to a primary source. As for the other matter, WP:AVIASTAR explains it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft infobox for 'Thirteen Colonies'

Dear BilCat,
I hope you are feeling better today. I have now created the subject infobox, as discussed a few days ago, and left you a message—and a link to the infobox—at the article's talk page (section: Incorrect British Flag). Thank you.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 11:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Sikorsky R-4

I had another go here [6] - see what you think. If unhappy please suggest something better. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:General Electric

Hello,

I deleted your comments on Talk:General Electric because the entire section is off-topic and does not belong on a Wikipedia Talk page. To read more about what Wikipedia is NOT please check this out WP:NOT. This would specifically be under WP:FORUM - as to why the whole discussion was removed, read here WP:TPO. Garchy (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I am NOT newbie to be lectured to. I made a judgment to respond to the comments in the way I did, rather than to delete them outright. I don't appreciate your interference, and I will restore the section as it was. - BilCat (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I've added a note to the OP regarding Forum to the section. I hope that addresses your concerns (and they are legitimate) adequately. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

In all honestly I think it would be best to have the entire section collapsed (the sources/links the OP left are really not helpful to the article and are a distraction) - but I do understand the sensitivity around working with others Talk page comments so I'll leave it be. Just remember, even me at 9+ years - I still considering myself a "newbie" in some respects, as we all should :) Thanks, Garchy (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a newbie. :) I can be prickly, petulant, and impulsive, but not a newbie. I can also be thoughtful and considerate. :) - BilCat (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, the many users of Wikipedia - We ARE great aren't we :) Happy editing! Garchy (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Somehow it all works! - BilCat (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

User:SundayRequiem

I am a bit of noob when it comes to dealing with people who misbehave on Wikipedia. User:SundayRequiem had updated Emma_Hewitt with an all rights reserved photo. I have undid the revision, but I wanted to give you a heads up about him. Photocyclone (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bombardier Global 7000

The article Bombardier Global 7000 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

It is unclear if any of these have ever been delivered. WP:CRSTAL

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I was in fact considering a G11. Since you removed the prod, I made a few edits to decrease the promotional tone. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I doubt it's eligible for G11, but you're welcome to try. Honestly, I've seen much worse from an article on an aircraft under development, and this one isn't that bad. The article meets GNG without question, though there are statements bin need of sourcing. - BilCat (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Number of Tejas in Indian Air Force

Hello there. I see you're active in the article HAL Tejas, and I though you might know this.. There's a little confusion in the number of Tejas aircraft with Indian Air Force and the number of Technology Demonstrators/testing aircraft in List of active Indian military aircraft. I did a bit of Googling but couldn't come up with a source that states a definitive number. Is there a a number that you're aware of? If yes, can you please update the numbers in List of active Indian military aircraft? Thanks and regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 07:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Speed of Sound

I am not correcting the suggested speed, whatever the speed you guys agree on, the Mach must match the MPH! Please correct them Warycarrier (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Mach No means what you seem to think it means. Mach No is not a constant speed, but it is very important when discussing aircraft performance, for example the critical Mach No is that speed at which some of the airflow over an aircraft first becomes supersonic, typically over the crest of the canopy, but it is a different speed at different altitudes. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Standard Speed

If you want to work on standard speed keep it KMH/MPH, the altitude reference is obviously not specified for the literal "Mach" its for the plane performance & I can see where the confusion starts. Warycarrier (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, aircraft speed is measured in Knots, or Mach No, depending on context. MPH/KMH only confuses the issue. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Flag of Canada

Thanks for noticing that one. I've decided to do a bit of cleaning up of bits of OR on various national pages (probably related to User:Mintytingy and various other socks). Meters (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not opposed to listing similar flags, when appropriate, but a bi-color triband flag isn't that unique, and there are only so many colors that make sense on flags. - BilCat (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks...

...but for spectacle, you can't beat the skinning alive of a Wikipedia editor, now playing at AN/I. (Sorry, I, forgot to add, the proper number, of, commas.) BMK (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly awkward in American English, but most MOS warriors treat US English as automatically incorrect. Probably a losing battle, and that's too bad. - BilCat (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I was wrong, per my 1980s copy of The Little, Brown Handbook. It still seems awkward to me, especially at the beginning of a sentence. - BilCat (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The much newer Merriam-Webster's Guide to Pronunciation and Style agrees, but does mention a case when the second comma sometimes isn't used: "We visited their Enid, Oklahoma plant." - BilCat (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

What is their rationale for omitting the comma in that case? Why not "We visited their Enid Oklahoma plant" so it at least stays balanced? Dicklyon (talk) 06:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

They didn't give a rationale for either way. - BilCat (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Just a question...

Hey Bill, I see you do a lot of work fixing vandalism (good work, btw), but I was just wondering why you don't template the vandals? Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 20:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I do warn them many times, in fact I just did one here about 10 minutes before you posted. It just depends on the vandalism, how many vandalism edits the user has made, etc. I have to warn manually, so sometimes it isn't worth the physical effort. - BilCat (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You don't have Twinkle? - ^theWOLFchild 20:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

No. I used IE 8 for years, and Twinkle doesn't work with it. I now mostly edit from 2 Fire tablets, but I haven't checked to see if it works or not. I used to have a script for warning vandalism, but it quit working a while back after WP made some changes to the wiki-software. - BilCat (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Maybe you can copy some templates onto a notepad, then use them when you need them. Anyway... Happy Editing. - ^theWOLFchild 20:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I just tried Twinkle from my tablet, and the interface does work. I'll try it out over the next few days and see how it does. Thanks for the suggestion. - ~~

Cool Beans! Look out vandals... - ^theWOLFchild 20:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Is there a way that the Rollback-Vandal option can label its reverts as Reverting Vandalism in the edit summaries? Or do I have to use the Rollback option to add text? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. I'm basically just a straight Twinkle user. I have played around in Preferences a bit to add some custom templates, but that's about it. You could check there, or the Twinkle help page, or failing that, ask someone who knows more about it. Sorry. - ^theWOLFchild 04:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I was just making sure I hadn't missed an easy setting. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

You might wish to take a look at this. BMK (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I already looked at it, but I usually stay out of ANI. You're actions certainly aren't vandalism, and the community should recognize that. I'll try to keep an eye on it though. - BilCat (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

SORRY BilCat

BilCat, buddy I wuz just foolin with u. Sorry bout DAT. #uhavswag. BreatherOfTruth (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

First flight on Amca

Hello I am the same person from the reference section of amca talk page. First flights section in the info box recently had been effected by edit war as the user Aryan Indian tried to put entry date around 2030 that looks like uncronstive, he is trying helping editing any helping Amca article but need guidance and look like he is not fimilar with the wikipedia rule. It's better to leave trust flight reference out if info box, but should be in other part of article with reference as it helps to understand programme development, But it be kept out of infobox as it look like speculative as you has already mentioned.

1.39.10.42 (talk) 03:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw your comment on the article's talk page. And wouldn't it be easier to use a registered name? That way you wouldn't have to keep saying "I am the same person from the reference section of amca talk page." - BilCat (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI

You might want to read this as you were involved and now mentioned. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 05:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Aeritalia

Ciao, please if you have time to look this:

• Aeritalia as Section of FIAT
• Aeritalia birth
• http://www.finmeccanica.com/en/one-company/storia1_history1/anni-1961-1972-il-boom-economico-e-l-aeritalia

I think indicate Fiat Aviazione is not correct because it was a branch of Fiat active only for motors. Thank you--Fernando.tassone (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Robert Conrad page

Not sure if this is where I need to leave this or not, but I had attempted to change the last name and heritage of Mr. Conrad's father twice and it was changed back both times. I do not have a way to cite this, as Mr. Conrad is a personal friend and had asked me to help him get this changed. Thanks Ekvannoy (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to raise the issue on the article's talk page so that other users can contribute. We can't just take your word that this at Mr. Conrad's request, as anyone can claim to be anyone. But we can discuss options available on the talk page. - BilCat (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

After reviewing the sources, I've gone ahead and removed all the information on Mr. Conrad's ancestry, as the sources are questionable to begin with, and this is per WP's policies on biographies of living people. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

ISIS

why isn't isis count as MiG-21 operator? Naytz (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Because the "witnesses" don't even know for certain what type of planes they are, per your source. - BilCat (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Reply to your message of today, Feb. 25, 2016

HLJaeger (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)BilCat,

My name is Harry Jaeger. I am a retiree of Westinghouse and have much good information to edit the article on Wesinghouse Combustion Turbine Systems Division. I have been meaning to improve that article for a long time.

The information that I added today is accurate. There were several names of CTSD before it was called that starting in 1978.

Also, the information on Westinghouse jet engine development and experience comes from several references, including:

ASME Paper 94-GT- 688 Scalzo, Bannister, Howard, and DeCorso “Evolution of Heavy-Duty Power Generation and Industrial Gas Turbines in the United States” delivered at the ASME International Gas Turbine Conference, The Hague, June, 1994.

US Navy Aircraft History --- Westinghouse: From Hero to Zero. A blog posted by Tommy Thomason, March 21, 2011, http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/03/from-hero-to-zero.html

Westinghouse J40 - Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westinghouse_J40

Please restore the edit that I contributed today and add those references if you need to.

Also, if you want to see the full story that I plan to use for editing of that article see the document at this link:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/n0o9z3qgfedvb7n/Early%20history%20of%20Westinghouse%20Gas%20Turbines%202-2016.pdf?dl=0

Regards,

Harry Jaeger

I'm not certain that any of those sources you listed meet Reliable Sources and Verifiability policies, though Tommy Thomason's blog might, as he is a published author. I will ask for assistance in judging which sources are useable though. Also, be wary of using the J40 article as a source, as you have to verify that such information is found in its cited sources, and the sources have to be cited directly.

Second, we already have an article on the Westinghouse Aviation Gas Turbine Division, and that's probably best place for your additions at this point. It certainly has room for expansion! However, I don't what relationship AGT and CTSD have to each other, but you may know.

Finally, my suggestion is that you work on your additions in a separate place, usually a sub-page under your username, and cite your sources there. I can help you with getting the sources cited correctly, and even setting up a sub-page, if you need help with any of that. There is also a Wikipedia project, WP:AIRCRAFT (WPAIR for short), where other users who are interested in aircraft topics hang out, and some of them will probably willing to assist also. As Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavor, having users with similar interests but different writing and editing skills helps us to achive better aviation articles. Some, like me, are just aviation fans, but others are pilots, engineers, technicians, etc. both civil and/or military.

Thanks, and I look forward to seeing more of what you can contribute. - BilCat (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Remarkable

The purpose of this comment is purely personal.

I regard your efficiency as truly remarkable.

Your response, by the way, to the immediately preceding submission strikes me as exceptionally gracious:

" … Helpful, Friendly, Courteous [and] Kind …"

Wordsmith (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Though if you check my recent editing history on this page, you'll find I'm not always up to that standard! - BilCat (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Instead of "nobody's perfect," I'll simply say what you quite probably know on your own:    only One is Perfect

In saying so, I'm not — as some may accuse me — speaking of a Cat.

Wordsmith (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, only One is perfect. - BilCat (talk) 10:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

tons and pounds

With regards to this edit at presidential state car (United States), I don't understand where the factoid of 20,000 pounds is coming from. It's not in the source, and it doesn't equal the ten tons that is at the source. Can you help me understand? — fourthords | =Λ= | 23:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

In US Customary Units, 1 short ton = 2000 pounds. Although the source isn't that clear about it, it's not referring to the metric ton, which would be written that way in a US publication. - BilCat (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Tu-144

There are a lot of pictures in wikimedia about the TU-144, if I select a list and recreate a gallery at the end of the article would be ok? I think the average user is juts looking at the picture in the article rather than searching all available content. Let me know. Or is there a way to link the wikimedia categories directly? Tnx. Camp0s (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Not generally, no. Pictures are hosted on Wikimedia Commons, and we have the link to the Commons gallery at the bottom of the page. That is usually sufficient. - BilCat (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Link to the "Commons Gallery" ..but where exactly? (can't see it) Camp0s (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The Commons link is usually in the external links section at the bottom of the article, generally on the right side. It has to be added manually, so sometimes it's in a different position in the article, and sometimes not there at all. But it is in this case. - BilCat (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary

As a current or past contributor to a USCG article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

COASTIE I am (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hey Bill, you've been curating navy related articles for quite some time now. Do you know if there has even been any task force or sub-project specifically for the US Navy? I see that other organizations have such task forces at WP:SHIPS and MILHIST. I'm wondering if maybe USN had one at one time that isn't around anymore. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 23:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know. :( - BilCat (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh well. Thanks anyway - ^theWOLFchild 00:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• btw - I thought you might like this and this. - ^theWOLFchild 01:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Errors on map?

Can you list the errors you mention on the File:List of countries gained independance from the UK 2.svg map, please. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The obvious one is Barbados, which became independent in 1966. We don't seem to have a specific article that lists former British colonies, but Changes in British sovereignty comes close. It isn't complete either, as the US isn't listed. - BilCat (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

UTC

Bilcat - My username is Dixielnddelight and I have a simple question, however I'd like to give you some background information first. I recently edited the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga page for a school project. I am actually a student and we were supposed to choose a topic to edit. Every fact that I wrote in the page was very factual and led no argument whatsoever. I even sourced everything and linked a couple items. My question is...why delete everything I wrote if it wasn't vandalism and if it was factual? I'm not offended by any means. I understand that you have the right to delete and edit as you wish. I am just curious. Please let me know when you can. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dixielnddelight (talk • contribs) 17:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Sopwith Camel

The Sopwith Camel was a single engined aircraft (far too small to have another engine fitted) - and every single camel built was powered by a rotary engine. No two engines Camels ever - no Camels ever had a "stationary" engine (like, say, a radial or inline one. In this context, the sentence "Early production Camels were powered by a single rotary engine, most commonly either the Clerget 9B or the Bentley BR1" is not unclear, it's palpable nonsense. It implies (contrafactually) that there were some non production Camels that WERE twin engined, and DID have stationary engines. "Production Camels were powered by a rotary engine, most commonly either the Clerget 9B or the Bentley BR1" on the other hand, is quite clear, factual, and I'm sure what the cite says. In fact, even the word "production" is a bit redundant - since even the prototypes were of course fitted with rotary engines. A still better form might be something like "The Camel was powered by a rotary engine - in the case of production models, mostly the Clerget 9B or the Bentley BR1". No idea how this wording crept into the article - remarkable that it took an IP to pick it up, but most surprising of all that an experienced editor like you didn't see the point. All the same, sorry about the suggestion that you hadn't read the sentence - that was uncalled for - if only because we need to show full forbearance. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The content in question was apparently added by Kyteo, in one of his numerous article improvement campaigns. He usually is pretty good, and his work is sourced, so I was trying to give his work the benefit of the doubt, hence the tags to call checking the original source. But, I do get tired of standing up for others and getting no slack, so whatever. I'm moving on, as it's not worth the hassle. - BilCat (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I do wish - given that you apparently had no idea what the original was about anyway - that you had not "blindly" reverted. Caused me, and possibly others, no end of "hassle" and for what, I'd like to know? I suspect the IP was an experienced editor who forgot to log in (for all we know Kyteo himself?) rather than a complete tyro - as the edit was very much to the point. Just to be on the safe side (and not being sure you weren't going to continue the "twin in-line engined Camel campaign" I double checked the reference - I had on my own shelf a later work by the same author - and have changed the citation to that (I suspect he used the same words, he tends to) in any case to the same salient fact - that the Clerget and the BR1 were the most common engines used in production Camels. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the original source - that's all I was trying to facilitate in my "blind revert", as my edit summary stated. I don't know what the original editor was trying to say, but I'm certain it wasn't to say there were twin engined Camels. But without the source, I did not think it wise to go changing what was there without checking the source first. Look, I may not have gone about it the way you would have, but I did have a purpose in mind. Now that the source has been checked and the sentence fixed, I hope we can move on from this without any hard feelings. - BilCat (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

No hard feelings at this end for sure. Appreciated that your intent was good all along, of course. In fact that was the point of my unfortunate comment. Currently this article (probably our highest traffic WWI aircraft article?) reads rather like Mr. Bruce on a bad day - it badly needs a complete rewrite, in the mean time we need to keep the text meaningful and coherent, at least, with no misleading inferences, no matter how unintended. Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree it needs a rewrite. - BilCat (talk) 05:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 364 editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this template to your page.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

  Buster Seven Talk 15:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations, Bill. That is a lot of work! - Ahunt (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Congrats Bill. A lot of edits there. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Is he a commons admin?

If he isn't we should remove the user box that says he is. If he is then we should leave it alone. Which is it? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

He's not a vandal making false claims, as he has been an admin on Commons in the past. It is his user page, so it's impolite to remove it on your own. If you don't think he's an admin on Commons now, then ask him about it, and ask him to remove it if he's not. - BilCat (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Question

Were you aware of this blatant insult he posted about you? I noted it in my 3RR report, but I wanted to make sure you knew about it, in case you wanted to pursue it. - ^theWOLFchild 05:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning it in your report. If it keeps up, I'll pursue it, but with the way he's edit warring, I doubt he'll be around too much longer if he keeps it up. - BilCat (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Canadian war with ISIL

A user moved this page to its current title. However, Canada is not at war with ISIL as they do not recognize the state. I was hoping it could be moved back to its old name, as that is what the military operation is called by the Canadian government. To whom do I go to request the move. It's a reversal so I don't know if requested moves would do it. Llammakey (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that you ask at MILHIST, but you just did that. :) That's probably the best thing to do in a case like this, as there are several admins in that project. - BilCat (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought of going to MILHIST just after I messaged you here.Llammakey (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem. You can always ask me anything. - BilCat (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)