User talk:BilCat/archive23

24.161.70.245 thanks

Thanks for the fix on that page, was just trying to fix someone sticking their own extremely suspect source. Don't really know much about editing wikipeida so I didn't notice the reason section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.70.245 (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

... with best wishes for a much better year in 2021.

X

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year

X Hi Bil. Hoping you have a good Christmas and that you and yours keep well and safe. Thanks for your kindness and support down the years. From Simon Adler (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

You've done it so many times I've lost count!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your consistent defense of the United States Armed Forces page and other military related pages from those "editors" that would vandalize them if they had a chance. I salute you, Sir! Cuprum17 (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I do appreciate it. BilCat (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Hi there Bilcat. This is a quick note to let you know about a thread at ANI that mentions you. It's located at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User becoming more erratic and disruptive. Cheers,— Diannaa (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Diannaa. Looks like the boomerang got 'em while I was still asleep. I love it when that happens! :) BilCat (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Rest easy my friend.— Diannaa (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

This is the sort of nonsense that isn't worth even an iota of a fleeting thought, BilCat. Keep up the great work! El_C 23:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk page comments

Thanks for removing those, but I reinstated it. I did promise him the last word, since he was going to take it anyway. I assume once he gets his dosage adjusted he'll read what he wrote and apologize, but if not, it does form bit of a complete narrative as it reads. - Ahunt (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

You take all the fun out of troll-fighting! :( BilCat (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I try, but just can't please everyone. - Ahunt (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I half expect this is some German egghead's idea of a psychology or journalism experiment, and in the end they'll claim they were just testing Wikipedia's commitments to its rules! Or he's just off his meds. Haven't decided. :) BilCat (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Could be either one really, or, most likely: both. Blows right through WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF as well as WP:PROVEIT. WP:GIANTDUCK applies though.

I hope your New Year's is uneventful! - Ahunt (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Rotorway editing

Hi BilCat, I edited the Rotorway to make it up to date. I understand you need to know the source. I am myself a Rotorway owner and a active participant of most Rotorway webpage. On these groups were are in direct contact with people that work at the factory or very close to them. One of our very good source is Robin Scalzo who has been there for a long time with many owners. She's the one there we ALL trust and we are lucky to have her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godabitibi (talk • contribs) 02:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Godabitibi: I'm sorry, but Wikipedia only accepts citations from reliable, published sources. You have to cite a newspaper, aviation magazine, or similar. Personal knowledge of any kind is not permitted. BilCat (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please see WP:RS and WP:OR for why we don't accept rumours in the encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Indiscriminate tagging

All the guy does is tag, he doesn't lift a finger to add citations or even check whether it's already cited. It's indiscriminate and not helping improve the article. I guess I can look forward to you doing the work then? WCM_email 01:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, I do the same thing he does. I've worked with him enough to know he's sincere about improving Wikipedia, and he actually does add a lot of sources, especially in East Asian-related military articles. That's an area a lot of us don't have expertise in due to language barriers. He's one of the good guys. It takes all kinds to make Wikipedia work, and I know from experience, both as a tagger and a sourcer that adding tags does spur improvement. Even deleting often helps encourage someone to find a source, even if it's because they're mad at me for deleting it! BilCat (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

To be equally frank that's bone idle laziness. If I see a cite is required I'll add it, deleting stuff to force someone to find a source is also the worst kind of laziness. It's not improving the articles and makes others do the work you should be doing. I use a CN tag a a method of last resort if I can't find a cite myself. That's the only way it should be used. So I guess you'll expect others to do the job for you then. WCM_email 13:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It's time and resource management. I have over 10,000 items on my watchlist (I had over 30,000 on it 2 years ago), and it takes me most of the day to go through it. I do source what I can, but to me it's worse if I leave something questionable in an article without tagging it for follow up. You've edited enough articles on contentious topics to know the kind of stuff that gets added to those types articles by "nationalists" and others with agendas to push. Most of the articles I edit are on aviation or military articles, which are subject tonmany questionable additions. However, I don't delete "indiscriminately", to use the popular phrase, and if I delete. something, it's genuinely because I believe it should not remain in the article in an unsourced state. BilCat (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Wow, my watchlist is under 500. BilCat, have you tried adding items to your watchlist for a period of time (1 week, 1 month, etc.) instead of permanant? This is a feature added somewhat recently. I'm trying it out on a couple articles I'm watching short term. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) WCM, while it's okay if you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, that doesn't mean it's the only correct interpretation or that you should attempt to force others to conform to it. If I see a cite is required I'll add it - good for you, but not everybody has that time, interest, or in some cases even the ability to get a source that might be behind a paywall, offline, etc. If I see something that needs a cite and I don't have time to look for a cite or it's outside my area of knowledge and/or interest, I still add {{cn|date=whatever}} because that is helpful to building the encyclopedia, while going "FIDO" is the opposite. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@BR - Thanks, I appreciate that. (And what's "FIDO"?)

@Fnlayson - Yeah, I'm starting to use the new watchlist settings, primarily on IPs that I warn, but I've been using it on articles sporadically too. BilCat (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Good deal. I had to look that acronym up. See FIDO, probably "Forget It, Drive On" (or .. Drive Off) near the bottom. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Usually it's a stronger word than "forget", but yeah, that's the meaning intended there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! BilCat (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Vandal

Any idea why why somebody would leave a racist screed on your talkpage, or who it might be connected to? Acroterion (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not certain, but I do have a hunch. Having not seen the screed though, I can't be very certain. Any clue what issue they were on about? BilCat (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Basically it was the old "Africans are beasts" canard. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. That's something I've never been accused of being by anyone who's ever seen me, though I can be beastly to vandals and trolls! I'll keep an eye on my hunch and see what happens. :) BilCat (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

What Bushranger said, succinct in the actual edit, but riffing at length in the edit summary. Acroterion (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

No worries. BilCat (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

SR-71?

<facepalm> Why the heck didn't I see that there was a redirect from "Cesium" to "Caesium"? Duh.

Anyway, Happy New Year to ya! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 22:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@UncleBubba: No worries. That's what collaborative editing is all about. BilCat (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@BilCat: I noticed you removed the health template. Glad you're hemi-demi-semi back! I hope everything's OK! Cheers! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 21:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism accusation

I know you mentioned this on my talk page, but why did you think my edit at Delta Flight Museum was vandalism? 24.23.138.1 (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The reason is that, 99.5% of the time, an IP editor who drops onto a page with a date that is cited to a source and changes the date without explanation, comment, or a new source, is vandalising. "Sneaky numbers vandalism" like that is probably the most common type of vandalism there is. That said, having looked into this, this actually looks to be a case of conflicting sources. The Boeing page that cites the date in question [1] does, in fact, give January 26 1989 as the delivery date of N661US to Northwest Airlines. The thing is, I assume you were editing based on the Delta Museum site which does in fact say December 8 1989! Now resolving that may be a sticky wicket, but I would lean towards Boeing having the correct date of those two. So, in the end, it turns out your edit was not actually vandalism, but I hope it's understandable how, given the circumstances, it was indistinugishable from vandalism. In the future, supplying an edit summary (and/or a new source for the altered/corrected date) should avoid issues like this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The Boeing source doesn't specify that it was N661US that was delivered on January 26, 1989, it was just the first delivery, and based on [2] and [3], N661US was delivered on December 8, 1989 while it was actually N663US that was delivered on January 26, 1989. 24.23.138.1 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @24.23.138.1: I would like to reiterate what The Bushranger said. The important thing is not so much what you did, but that you didn't explain what you were doing. Vandals tend to hit and run, and they do it a lot. If you edit as an IP address (i.e. without an account), and don't explain what you're doing, your edits are far more likely to be mistaken for vandalism and reverted. It may not be right, but it does happen. Cheers! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 23:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your answers, which were spot on. BilCat (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Archive

Your archive has rolled over onto a new page mate. WCM_email 14:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. BilCat (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Stopping the Rafale edition war ?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Guys could we please stop the frequent edition war on Dassault Rafale list of primary users ?

Some "people" are constantly adding India to the list of users. They don't seem like they are going to stop. Which isn't in itself a reason to agree with them but let's be honest, the current situation doesn't make sense. There is a list of "primary users" for a plane exported to 4 countries so far and delivered to 3. I don't see how there can be any "secondary users" in this case. If anything, France is the primary user and export countries are secondary due to low quantities ordered. But removing India from the list in the box makes little sense : they have ordered it and it's being delivered as we speak. Next thing you know they will have 3 more than the last time. They are a user of the Rafale and will be even more in the future. I don't understand why India is not a "primary user" . Just because they don't have operational capacity ? So then the section in the box could be changed into "in service" otherwise the distinction makes no sense. I can't see how a product that has been delivered to 3 countries so far can have "primary" and "secondary" users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KRaikkonen01 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The consensus standard is to do it that way. We don't let edit warriors get their way just because they won't stop. Also, its very obvious: primary users are French air force and navy; "more users" is everyone else. Pages are limited, by consensus, to primary user + 3 "more users". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox shows Egypt is a primary user with 24 planes on order. Edit consensus harms the coherence of the list from the user's pov — Preceding unsigned comment added by KRaikkonen01 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

We go by the total number of aircraft in service, not by orders. Egypt currently has more in service than India. Just be patient, as India has 36 on order. Also, I prefer to discuss article issues on the article's talk page, so other users can comment. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, orders can be canceled. Ordered aircraft don't mean that much until they are delivered and in service. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

What does Edit consensus harms the coherence of the list from the user's pov even mean anyway? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: The Dassault Rafale has been hit again by another IP that can't read the notes. Do you think perhaps we could get a semi-protect for a few weeks? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Having looked at the protection log history, semi'd for (another) three months. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much! BilCat (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SCB info

Looks good on Skipjack? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks. BilCat (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Please bear with me, I am trying to add the new Enterprise reference by my computer keeps locking up on me.

I'd like some guidance. I really hate the idea of adding SCB project info to individual ships unless they pertain only to the ship. I would much prefer to keep it on a ship class level or higher. Problem is, some classes don't have a class level Wiki article. What do you recommend? Create a class-level article or subsection, or keep as is? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I will go back and insert references where necessary. Please note that some, such as the Grayback class article, already had the appropriate reference. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• On having ship class articles, most major ship classes should already have class articles. Some ships were only one-offs, like USS Enterprise (CVN-65), so there isn't a class article for it. BilCat (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• • Correct. The postwar but pre-Newport class LSTs don't, nor do many of the other auxiliaries of the time.Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• • • I don't do much with the minor ship types like LSTs, but if you haven't done it already, you should check out WP:SHIPS. The project does a lot with all ship types. BilCat (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

USS Arizona SSN 803 - Sponsor Removal

You removed the sponsor info for the USS Arizona submarine. While I may not be neutral, I am actually the sponsor of the Sub. I have the documentation via the Sec Nav but as it has personal info on there, I am uncomfortable sharing that with the wiki world. Hoping you can add it back to the wiki about section. Thanks ~NS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ussarizonasponsor (talk • contribs) 23:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC) https://granthshala.com/usa/granddaughter-honors-pearl-harbor-survivor-through-uss-arizona-sponsorship-in-gilbert/ https://www.perch-base.org/Events/2020/2020_11_05_Gilbert/Program.pdf and info on my grandfather - https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2020/02/16/donald-stratton-escaped-uss-arizona-pearl-harbor-dies-obituary/4779841002/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ussarizonasponsor (talk • contribs) 23:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ussarizonasponsor: Wikipedia doesn't expect you to share private information. That's one reason it requires all information added to articles to cite reliable, published sources. What we need is something publicly available, such as from the US Navy website or a newspaper, to enable other users to verify the information. Do you know of anything like that? BilCat (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @BilCat:I added 3 different news paper articles - 2 about my speech and program, and one about my grandfather being one of the last 3 uss arizona survivors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ussarizonasponsor (talk • contribs) 23:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @BilCat: - here is the letter I received signed by the Navy. https://twitter.com/stratty05/status/1269264026862850048/photo/1

@Ussarizonasponsor: How many sponsors are there? M.Bitton (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@M.Bitto: Just one, one woman for one ship/sub/carrier etc. It ranges from First Ladies, to movie stars, to politicians. Here is a full list. As the USS Arizona sub hasn't been built yet, my name isn't on there yet. https://societyofsponsorsofusn.org/membership/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ussarizonasponsor (talk • contribs)

@BilCat: What do you think of these sources?[4][5][6][7] M.Bitton (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Thank you! The Az Republic has been amazing to our family. And yes, Gilbert was offically named and voted on as the Sponsor City/Town of the USS Arizona — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ussarizonasponsor (talk • contribs)

@M.Bitton: Thanks, yes, those should work. BilCat (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@BilCat: I'll leave it in your safe hands. Regards. M.Bitton (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ussarizonasponsor! I was asked to step in and offer you some assistance regarding your changes to the USS Arizona (SSN-803) article. As BilCat has stated above, all content that we add to any Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable source - a source that's secondary, independent of the article subject, and that's peer-reviewed and generally accepted as being trusted. Wikipedia does not accept original research, which generally refers to someone "citing themselves" (or work that they, themselves, have written) as the source of content. Basically, it means that I cannot say that "I'm the source", or "I know this because I know this person", "I'm writing this because I have person experience with this", nor can I cite any sources or work that I've written. It looks like you've provided a few sources above in your response. That's great, so long as the references actually state what you're trying to add. We also try to avoid content that's unnecessary or trivial. My question to you is this: Does the article need to have information about the submarine's sponsor? Why is adding this information so important to you? Based on your username, I can tell that your intentions are single-purpose, meaning that the reason that you are creating an account here and editing Wikipedia is solely to add this information. Is this information encyclopedic and beneficial to the reader? What makes this content necessary for addition to the article? Please make sure to ping me in your response by typing {{ping|Oshwah}} within your reply so that I'm notified that you responded. If you have any questions or need assistance, you can message me by clicking here. Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Oshwah, most US Navy ship articles do have the sponsor information in the infobox, which is what the user was adding to the Arizona submarine article. So having the sponsor name there isn't an issue. We do have independent sources now, so I'll be adding it there shortly. BilCat (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

BilCat - Perfect! I'm happy that this has been resolved! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Oshwah: SPA & COI issues aside, I'm not really sure of the (erm, stuck on a word here... relevancy? legitimacy? necessity?, well anyway) of asking "why" she wants to add this info. (Plus it's obvious, isn't it? She's the sponsor because of her grandfather.) Anyway, a huge number of USN ship pages (dare I say majority?) have the ship's sponsor noted. There's even a parameter for it in the Infobox ship career template (and the parameter is also accepted manually in the Infobox ship begin template). Bilcat asked for a source and that request was satisfied. I'm not sure any further discussion on that is needed, just as I'm not sure why there is a need to single out and question this user about this edit, (or do so on this tp, I think Bilcat likes to keep chitchat here to a minimum). This revert/sourcing discussion should've been held on the article tp (if the user knew better), just like any other questions specifically about that article should be. The spa & coi issues are probably better off posted on that user's talk page, and questions in general about the need to include a ship's sponsor are better off asked at wt:ships where you'll find editors (like myself) happy to discuss that with you. (just my humble opinion) - wolf 05:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Hi Thewolfchild! Thanks for letting me know. I wasn't aware that the sponsor of a submarine or ship was normal content to add to an article... I'm obviously no expert when it comes to this exact topic. It looks like the issue has been resolved; the user has provided reliable sources and it'll be added to the article soon. I consider this case closed. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

As the person who asked for Oshwah's input, I'm satisfied with all of his responses here. BilCat (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

BilCat Oshwah User:Thewolfchild - just to provide some background - yes I am the sponsor, and yes I am the granddaughter of an Arizona survivor. Sponsors are the first and perpetual member of the crew for the entirety of the ship's lifespan. They sign their initials in the keel, break the bottle over the bow, and commission the ship bringing it to life. It is a 40+ year commitment one that lasts from before the ship is built to well after it is decommissioned. Had I realized I needed to cite a few articles I certainly would have. However I do plan to keep the page up to date with future dates (ceremonies etc) that come across my path. As the sponsor, I am (outside of the direct navy) the first to know of items details the sub. I appreciate the back and forth and I have learned quite a bit from it and will be sure to get things in order the next time I post or update. The Arizona is going to be unlike any other ship in the Navy with its twin sitting under the water at Pearl Harbor. Thank you all for your assistance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ussarizonasponsor (talk • contribs) 15:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Just for info the relevance of mentioning the sponsor was discussed recently, no consensus but the majority of regular ships editors consider it unimportant fluff [8] Lyndaship (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Parliament article

Medieval and early modern era parliaments appeared ONLY in the West (Catholic-Protestant countries) , and it has no relationship with city councils (like Roman Senate), and it is a supreme legislative institution, not to be confused with weightless advisory bodies of monarchs.... See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Parliament#Minimum_criterias_of_Parliaments --Creator Edition (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Creator Edition: I'm not sure what you want me to do about this. Are you asking for advice? I don't know much about European-style parliaments and their histories, so I can't help specificlly with those discussions. All I can say is to give the discussions some time, and other users should respond there. Also, beware of violating Wikipedia's guidelines against Canvassing. You can ask other users for advice about article talk page discussions, but asking specific users participate in discussions, especially to support your opinions (which you have not done here yet) is against the guidelines. BilCat (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

CK Asset Holdings

Did you used wrong wording in edit summary? User:N0pep0tat03z is not listed in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoggardhigh but you reverted N0pep0tat03's edit Special:Diff/1002748401 and state "Reverted sockpuppetry by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoggardhigh per WP:EVADE". Matthew hk (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

No, I didn't use the wrong summary. BilCat (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Reading your User Page, it seems Wikipedia's gotten you pretty down. It's definitely a tough place, and I think it's stagnating, but if it makes you feel any better, I'm a fairly new fish. And though it's killing my elbows, I've salvaged a lot of really embarrassing articles (like Aerobee). If you ever want to dive into Spaceflight with me, I'll be glad of the company. :) Neopeius (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Neopeius: Thanks! After nearly 15 years on Wikipedia, it's easy to get jaded about it sometimes. But it's a tough habit to break, as you've either already discovered, or soon will. As for the invitation, I spend most of my time working on aircraft and aviation related articles. That can sometimes includes spaceflight related articles, but for the most part I stick with aviation. BilCat (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Aviation is where I started. :) French WW2 aircraft, actually. Well, when you're banging your head against the wall, know that you've got a friend who's carrying on the good fight! --Neopeius (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the Thanks! I'm on a bit of a RedWarn rampage tonight as I have nothing better to do. Just trying to help the community. :D WiiBoi (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

A pie for you!

thanks for such a warm welcome on my page, so here's the least i could do! - SeaBiscuit159 (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hoggardhigh

User:107.134.16.11 has made a couple of edits, after their block. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. If it keeps it up, we can contact the last blocking admin to see if we can get a longer block. BilCat (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

To note, they made a solitary edit yesterday. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service

Sorry, stupid of me, I was just looking quickly at diffs and didn't take the time to understand the point the previous editor was making. Thanks for cleaning that up. Mark83 (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mark83: No worries, I do that sometimes myself. I should have done the conversion tags earlier, but I procrastinated. Oh well, it's done now. BilCat (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinto

Hi BilCat. I had listed the airplane here like the other plane there. OyMosby (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

DAB pages and hatnotes are not bidirectional. BilCat (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah got it. I saw it on other articles so wasn’t sure when it applies yet. OyMosby (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

No worries. It does depend on the article. See WP:HATNOTE for further information. BilCat (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Page reverts

Hey, I noticed that you reverted multiple edits that I made removing the "File:" from various infobox images without any explanation, but I am not sure why, as it is not needed for the images to display correctly. Is there a specific reason for this? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it make changing the images in aircraft articles easier, something that can happen frequently. It's just a preference within WP:AIR. The infobox originally required the "File:", but it was changed by a busybody user without our consent. We didn't make big deal of it, but we still prefer to keep it in the infobox. BilCat (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Paramount/CBS stuff

Just FYI, there was another c&p move attempted at Template:CBS All Access, already reverted. I'm unfamiliar with the background here, but it may be worth watch listing some additional pages in the area in case this spreads. 119.59.121.162 (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw that one too. There's not much we can do to prevent cut-and-paste moves. Just revert and warn as you did for that one. BilCat (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Hi. You look as one editor who has a lot of experience and who knows about this kind of stuff. I recently saw Military-industrial complex article and recent addition of content from animal-industrial complex article based on one book where it is claimed about that two are connected or the same. So as things need to get wide acceptance and recognition to be added at wikipedia, and this is not place for advocacy or promotion of thought to get some attention as I understood about Wikipedia. I opened talk page discussion too at that Talk:Military–industrial complex under "Recently added content". Please, as one editor with a lot of experience can you check? Would be great. Thank you. 93.86.99.45 (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. but both of those are topics I generally avoid. You could post at WT:MILHIST, as there are probably editors there with more experience with the MIC concept. BilCat (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for answer. I posted it there, if you know and if you wanna, you can tell me some editor who know much about, maybe I am in mistake about but let's see, I don't know... 93.86.99.45 (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Notifying MILHIST is enough. Contacting any more users individually can be considered canvassing, which is frowned on by the Wikipedia community. BilCat (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Ahh ok, I didn't know that, thank you! I posted it in the MILHIST. 93.86.99.45 (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

End of Citation 680/King Air 90 production

Just for info this is probably a source for some recent edits https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2021-03-08/textron-aviations-king-air-90-citation-sovereign-end-their-rule MilborneOne (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Why is including a source such a difficult concept for some people to understand?? Sigh. BilCat (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

List of battleships for countries

Since when did Wikipedia establish that there must be a consensus to create a new article? if so, no one could create an article. --Muwatallis II (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

When it's a WP:CONTENT FORK. BilCat (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Mutt Lunker

I am having serious problems with Mutt Lunker, who you have also had the misfortune to experience, reverting my constructive edits without valid reason. Is there anything we can do as a community to clip his wings a bit, so to speak? I would go as far as to say his behaviour is blatant vandalism.

All the best. SunriseUntilSunset (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, no, Mutt's a good guy trying to keep Wikipedia safe from blocked and banned users who edit on Wikipedia using sockpuppets and meatpuppets. He's doing great work, and we often work together here to catch them. From your edit history, its quite obvious what you are doing. Wikipedia isn't MMRPG where you try to see how long you can survive before the monsters get you. It's a serious encyclopedia for serious information, and we need serious people with a grown-up mentality who can work well with others to improve. it. But Wikipedia can be a fun experience too if you learn to follow the rules. Come back in a few years when you've matured a little, amd perhaps you can be a productive editor then. Wikipedia still be here, and barring some serious unforeseen life circumstances, so will Matt and I. Cheers. BilCat (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Saab 35 Draken infobox image

Hello BilCat. It seems you have a strong opinion on the image used in the infobox on the Saab 35 Draken Wikipedia article. I have so far had 2 of my edits reverted by you, and even though i understand your arguments i do think that the current image used is a bad representation of the aircraft as a whole. It is a trainer aircraft with a double canopy and it uses an uncommon nose (the WDNS reconnaissance nose) which only reconnaissance aircraft and the later Danish Drakens used. Beyond that it is a fairly ugly image as a whole since it has its landing gear out.

To my point.

What are your requirements for the info box image? I really want the image to be a fighter variant as thats the most common role the aircraft was used in, and also preferably a Swedish variant as the aircraft is of Swedish origin.--Blockhaj (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Blockhaj: It's not my requirements as such, but WP:AIR/PC recommends using in-flight images which show the aircraft at a good angle. Wikipedia image guidelines recommended inward-facing images, but we usually prioritize in-flight photos over inward-facing ones. Wanting to show the primary or most important user and or variant, while an admirable goal, really should be done only when equally good images are available to choose from, and one needs to narrow down the choices. Backgrounds can also be an issue, but most important is one that makes the aircraft stand out from the background, or a bright livery can do that too. The best thing to do is to raise the issue on the article's talk page and provide a selection of photos to chose from. That way other interested editors can participate in the discussion, and give their own opinons. We actually face this issue alot on airliner articles, with many of them having notes that ask for new images to.be proposed on the talk page first. The advice isn't always followed, but it does help limit the disputes to the talk page.

Personally, I like the "beauty shot", a photo that just grabs one's attention, and makes one say " Wow!", but not every very editor subscribes to thay view. Some of our airliner articles especially seem to have the same basic "pose" in the infobox, and can get old. A unique shot, livery, background, or something different can help. Hope all that helps. BilCat (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Blockhaj: I see you didn't take my advice. That's your choice. And no, I don't think it's a better photo, but I'm not going to edit war with you over it. I will seek other opinions though, since you declined to. BilCat (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I did take your advice. It took me hours to find an inward-facing image in flight that was i public domain. However i did miss your point about starting a discussion. Although i have discussed the topic with several aviation enthusiasts in private and we all agreed that the current box image was crap. And even then it was added as a stopgap when the previous one was deleted from commons.--Blockhaj (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I guess your English isn't as good as I thought it was. My suggestion was post several alternate images on the article's talk page, and allow other users to comment on which image they thought was best. Once a consensus is reached, then the new photo would be added. It's a measure of good faith, but I guess they don't have that on Swedish Wikipedia. BilCat (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

My english is fine. I simply glanced over it the first time. As for a suggestion, it's for the future.--Blockhaj (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

It was in the future when I suggested it. You chose not to do it, and willfully so, as you've now admitted. But you've made it clear your only goal was to remove the Danish aircraft. I'm going to restore it. BilCat (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

My goal was not to remove anything. I moved down the danish aircraft to the correct section. My goal was to implement an image that represents the subject matter better. Your'e clearly not very good at collaborating with people if you are going to undo a change as a punishment because i missed your point about creating a suggestion.--Blockhaj (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)I

I've been trying to collaborate with you, but once it became apparent you had no intention of collaborating in return, I reverted to the last longstanding image. But that isn't "punishment". I've looked in the Draken articles on the other Wikipedias, and I really didn't see any that were any better than the Danish one. Several of them do use the Danish photo in the infobox, so it's not unique to English Wikipedia. I'd still like to find a better one, but Commons makes it extremely difficult to find images because of over-categorization. We used to be able to see all of an aircraft's images on one page, but they decided it was more important to have so many categories. It now takes almost forever to view all the photos of a single aircraft type. Very frustrating. BilCat (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The reason so many other languages uses the Danish TF-35 image is due to the English wikipedia using it, as the English wikipedia is seeb as the default one. Also the Danish picture has not been the info box image for a long time. The info box quite recently had an Sk 35C as its photo. Then it got removed because of copyright and then the Danish one was added as a quick fix. As for collaboration i did try to collaborate. I uploaded 2 new pictures to commons just because the last one i added didn't fit the bill. As for the suggestion i seriously just missed it. And i had already talked with people about the subject previously which is why i started this process from the start, so i really did not feel the need to start a useless suggestion on the discussion page. From my experience the english community rarely bothers with suggestions. At best 3 people respond and never leave enough feedback to conclude anything. Blockhaj (talk) 07:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Department of the Navy

Hello BilCat. I was wondering if you could chime in on this edit war User:thewolfchild caused. It started when the US Navy got a new Acting Under Secretary of the Navy. An IP user added the name of the new under secretary and then Thewolfchild made an edit where left the full title of United States Under Secretary of the Navy in the infobox and added PTDO next to the name. In order to fit the standard other similar pages have, such Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, Department of the Army, etc, I simplified the link. I removed the refs because I notice once a person is known to be in a position, refs aren't needed in the infobox (ex: we don't have refs the Deputy Secretary in the Dep of Defense infobox). Thewolfchild reverted my edit and I gave my explanation in the next edit. Thewolfchild reverted again and I addressed his concern in my new edit. Thewolfchild reverted again so I made a new edit, again trying address his concern. His next gripe was that I removed the refs so I made sure to include in my next edit. Then he reverted for the sixth time and is now complaining about not having the link for PTDO. When an official is an acting position, we don't link to the acting article in infoboxes (for ex: Department of Defense when there was two acting officials). I've never seen someone nitpick over a simple edit before and finding something new that is "wrong". I was wondering if you could come in and help because I don't want this edit war to continue. Dash9Z (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dash9Z: The easiest way for you to stop an edit war with one user is to not revert him again. This is especially true with Thewolfchild because, in his mind, his revert is always the correct one. Remember, except for true vandalism and other obvious violations of policy, like BLP, there is no of correct version of an article. (That's a hard for me sometimes, as I like to be "right"!) The best thing to do in this situation is to not revert him again, and discuss it on the article's talk page. Some edit warriors don't like discussion, but Thewolfchild loves it. Just be prepared support your position with citations. As to the specific issue, I really don't know anything about the titles and such, so I generally stay away from that sort of discussion. I hope all that's been made f some help. 16:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@BilCat: Thank you for your response BilCat. Dash9Z (talk) 05:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

M1 Carbine

You recently reverted on of my edits on the M1 carbine regarding variant designations and a few myths. While I don't disagree with the decision, I think someone should look into the article to fact check. I think the variants are designated with incorrect names. Do you know anyone who could help with this?Blamazon (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Blamazon: The best place to start would probably be at WT:MILHIST. 23:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

A bit late...but a pi for you!

Apologies for being a bit late, but to celebrate a belated π day, here's a pi for you! Tfess up?or down? 04:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

National security

What do you think about recent changes made by editor Jacbourg on that article (National security)? Seems to that user has some "problem" (maybe it is about the English language) and change nations/national/nation states/states things in various articles. I saw it at AGM-114 Hellfire and I saw you reverted that. Nubia86 (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nubia86: Yup, it seems so. I only reverted him on the Hellfire because unsourced it clearly uses American English, and per ENGVAR, nation is preferred over state, for hopefully obvious reasons. I know "state" retains the nation meaning in much of the rest of the world, but I'm not sure that their parsing of the differences is totally correct. I'm not going to make an issue of it just yet, but if they keep it up, it may become disruptive. If you believe this needs a discussion somewhere, just pick on of the talk pages of the articles he's changed, and start a discussion there, or talk to them directly on their talk page. I'm not sure they'll be open to discussion, however, as this seems to be a pet peeve of theirs. Most users with those have already made up their mind about the "correctness" of their position, and usually end up being blocked in the end. But we still have to assume good faith and at least attempt to discuss it first. BilCat (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

After looking at their edits to National security, I've reverted them, as those are major changes to the article's terminology, especially given the article's title isn't "State security". That term also has some negative connotations that aren't necessarily carried by "national security", so discussion beforehand is needed. I'll keep watching that page to see if they revert me. BilCat (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly as I thought, so maybe, there is really some "problem" with the English language for some editors and how that terms, state and nation, nation state, national are perceived in some other parts of the world. I have checked some dictionaries, for example the Merriam- Webster about a nation: "a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government. Canada is a nation with a written constitution — B. K. Sandwell". I don't see any problem with that terms Nation, Nation state, National in the English language Wikipedia, so for me it was strange to see that edit, and that article is informative and important, would be wrong to be misleading. Also about "State security" you are right, and listed definitions, references, institutions and documents in that article, as I checked, are about "National security" Nubia86 (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It may be a continental European preference, but I really don't know. Most British English usage I can remember tends to use nation and state somewhat interchangeably, though I could be mistaken. BilCat (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

You are right. Maybe for some editors when they translate that terms in the English language from their native ones could have some different meanings. Many institutions, documents, also many examples in literature especially considering international law, include "national" in their names and content, and that is really common, and I don't think that can confuse people to they think it is just for some group of people inside some country and not for a country as whole at least here in the English language Wikipedia. Nubia86 (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't remember where, but I am sure I saw some of those edits before. It was something similar but it got reverted fast. Instead of something "national" someone changed to "state". I hope those edits are with good faith and to someone could be just wrong, and there is not something behind it. You reverted recent edit on national security article, so maybe the editor will open there talk page discussion. Let's see. Nubia86 (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) in British English the nation doesnt really equal state, if you said state it would imply the apparatus of the country that is the government rather than the country. MilborneOne (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: Ok, thanks. Is the term "national security" normal usage in the UK? I notice that the UK now has a National Security Council (United Kingdom), but it's somewhat modeled after the US version. BilCat (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes you would not find the term "state security" used in the UK. MilborneOne (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought, but I wasn't certain. BilCat (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by editor you warned continues apace

Disruptive editing by Chadply (talk · contribs) continues apace. You put a warning on the editor's talk page a week ago. Three weeks ago I tried to communicate about editing behavior and reverted a number of the more egregious edits. No engagement, just continues. I'm not an admin, and I don't think I've ever reported somebody. But it seemed you would know how to handle it. -- M.boli (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Pilatus

It looks like User:Oekihof is another reincarnation of our friend FFA P-16. Signatures: adding models and very poor English. The Banner talk 11:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Yup. I spotted that when I reverted, but was planning to give it just a little more Rope. BilCat (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II

Hi! While your edit of mine may SEEM correct, it is in fact not. F-017 was delivered last week, and no: indeed I did not quote any posts (will fix that though). But you then made it worse and changed it completely to a fully incorrect amount. The RNLAF has now effectively 17 F-35A's, 9 of which are at Leeuwarden, 6 are at Luke and the remaining two at Edwards. I updated the previous number from 16 (see history) plus the new one. What you could have done was make mention of an incorrect reference, instead you opted to enter completely incorrect data, making my mistake even worse. Thought you'd like to know. RonaldV-tm (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@RonaldV-tm: I made absolutely no changes to your edit, other than reverting it, as shown here. Your edit did not cite a reliable published source, and was correctly reverted. I stand by my edit, and in the future I will revert you or anyone else under the same circumstances, just so you know.

Please realize that Wikipedia articles are encyclopedia articles, not a collection of forum posts. Changing content from a specific date that is cited to a specific source, without updating the souce, is incorrect, and should always be reverted. It is far better to have outdated information that corrctly cites a source. At least that way others know where and when the information comes from. BilCat (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Corrections

Good catch, many thanks!Pi3.124 (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Military recruitment

Hi BilCat, how are you? Hope doing fine... Can you check Military recruitment and especially the Counter-recruitment section? I have 2 concerns. First, it seems as WP:CONTENTFORK, there is already main article with the same examples listed (Counter-recruitment under "Rationale"). Second, about that examples, it is general overview article about militaries in general and in Counter-recruitment article that examples are contributed to the countries as opposite to main military recruitment article when it is all generalized. So maybe that section could be removed and linked under "see also"(where is already linked), or left with the link and short summary. I thought about doing some of that but better to ask someone with a lot more experience and knowledge. Nubia86 (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nubia86: Sorry, but I don't know much about the topic, and am somewhat busy off-wiki today. You should probably ask at WT:MILHIST, as it is watched by many editors with varying interests in military matters, and someone there ought to be able to help out. BilCat (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

So I can put there my concerns in the same way how I wrote to you? With that active discussions. I think I will try, I don't wanna to make some huge change of content without to consult someone. Nubia86 (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you can just copy what you wrote to me, and just change the wording where necessary. BilCat (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

You are amazing! Thank you for help. Nubia86 (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. BilCat (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Continent

It seems to be that this article badly needs to be semi-protected. It's a constant stream of editors unhappy with the conventional seven-continent model, and insisting they are making the article conform to The Truth ... when the number of continents is largely a matter of human convention. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm considering posting at WP:RPP about it, but am preoccupied at the moment. Go ahead and file it if you want, or I'll do it a little later. BilCat (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks like User:Acroterion already took care of it. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Authority control

Thansk! It's very mysterious. I'm not sure I understand even with the link. But, "I am still learning!" Hope to see you around more. Need more flag talk! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same question. There're just some things about Wikipedia that are over my head, and this is one of them. But I'll be around. BilCat (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

File under "mostly harmless". - Ahunt (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Ingenuity image

Is the image not clear . I think ingenuity is shown clearly in my photo Chinakpradhan (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Not every reader on Wikipedia has 20/20 vision. Please bear that in mind. BilCat (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Just my two cents, but I think the image is pretty clear. It's obviously not very high resolution, but it's definitely clear enough to easily tell what you're looking at and is also one of only a couple images ever taken of a helicopter on the surface of another planet. This seems like a case where no higher resolution version could be realistically acquired "for historical, technically difficult or otherwise unique images" (from WP:FP?; not trying to say this should be a FP, but it's the same idea here). Yes, the image taken before launch is clearer and better-lit, but the article also includes an image like that as the very next image (the diagram) for anyone that needs to see it a little clearer. I think the context of this image of it on the surface is important enough for it to be used as the lead image for the time being. It very quickly shows the reader that the helicopter is actually out there on the surface of Mars right now. The image of it in a lab does not do that. I'm sure there will be more (hopefully better) images released soon and this can be re-evaluated frequently, but for now this seems like the best image for the lead to me. --Yarnalgo _talk 16:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Yarnalgo: There is something wrong with that image (possible copyright infringement). It cannot be a "clearer view" (as claimed) of the first uploaded image (taken from this source). To me, it looks like a screenshot from this video. M.Bitton (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Yarnalgo: I opened a discussion on the article's talk page last week, when this user was putting clearly substandard images in the lead. It was ignored. I wasn't the only user to remove the bad images, but I was the only one to do so consistently, and to discuss it. However, the consensus of the editors on the article appears to be to allow this user to add every image they can find to the article, regardless of the quality, into a large gallery, and in the lead, while removing the only photo that actually shows the helicopter clearly from the article although. Fine, I'll stay away from the article, and leave it it its fan-being state. Unfortunately, this same user is also adding the same bad image to other articles that I've had on my watchlist for a long time. That's becoming problematic, but again, I appear to be the only person whose concerned. So I'll. leave this user to keep making absolute messes on Wikipedia, and sit back and laugh. Ha hah ha ha ha. This is why professional people, of whom I am not one, think Wikipedia is a joke. And incidents like this just reinforce that. So please leave me out of this from now on. Thanks.

@M.Bitton: NASA images and footage are generally not copyrighted, but I doubt this user would even know it if they were. Yet no one seemed concerned about it. So again, I laugh. Ha hah ha ha ha. BilCat (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@BilCat: I agree that this user has been making a mess, but I've been doing my best to clean up the images he uploads and the galleries he posts them to, as well as educate him as to what he's doing wrong (at least in regards to his uploads on Commons, but I haven't directly addressed the over-adding of images on articles). Whether or not the current collection of images on those pages are appropriate to include is a different discussion, but I've tried to at least remove the many duplicates of the same scenes that he was adding and replace his poorly-edited versions of the images with the originals or better quality versions. I think these images of the deployment are pretty interesting to include at least on one article, but I agree that having the same collection on three different pages is unnecessary. The whole collection can probably be replaced at some point by one animated gif showing the whole deployment sequence, but I thought the way it is was fine for the moment while this whole thing is still in progress. Remember, assume good faith and try not to bite newcomers. This guy is just trying to make the article better so there's no need to laugh at him or be hostile. I would love your help to clean these articles up more and remove unnecessary images, but I also understand why you're losing patience here. I agree that it's very frustrating when someone who doesn't know what they're doing keeps messing things up, but that doesn't mean it can't be fixed or that he can't learn. --Yarnalgo _talk 19:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: As BilCat says, these images are all public domain since they're from NASA. The source link on the image page is clearly for this image and shows that it's coming directly from NASA. I agree that he should not have overwrote the original image that he had uploaded since this one is actually a different image and not just a clearer version, but he changed the source to match the new version and I've gotten tired of cleaning up everything he does to make it all perfectly "correct" so I left this as-is. --Yarnalgo _talk 19:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Yarnalgo: I wasn't laughing at him/her/?/ nor belittling them are, though I certainly feel like doing so; I was laughing at Wikipedia. I'm frustrated that a user who clearly is not CIR-compliant, in my opinion, is allowed to disrupt Wikipedia because they mean well. The problem is systematic, as Wikipedia makes it far too easy for such users to operate unsupervised, and we're told just to assume good faith. I realize you're frustrated too, but I'm not good at babysitting in real life, and I wouldn't do it for free for people I'm not related too. Yet that's what Wikipedia expects us to do. I quit Wikipedia a couple of years ago because of issue like this, but I came back. I'm probably nearly ready for another hiatus. BilCat (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense and totally fair. --Yarnalgo _talk 20:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Civility of edit summaries

This revert is good but the edit summary is a way off. Please keep WP:CIVIL in the future. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a humorous response based the LTA's five-year long (at least) history of disruption. I'm sorry you don't get it, but it is appropriate. BilCat (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Alex Bakharev: To be honest, I should have kept an LTA report of the user, but I hate writing reports, and really didn't expect them to still be at it 5 years later. It's quite a strange and tangled history, mostly focused on Russian and Ukrainian military products, but also Russian/Ukrainian Orthodox churches (no kidding). Definitely a CIR issue, but they always use several ranges of dynamic IPs, so blocks are useless.

Anyway, I can justify every word in my now quite lengthy edit summary, and even the most outrageous sounding part is based on what they have written over the years. Since you were vague about exactly what you found uncivil, I can't address any specifics yet. BilCat (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Alex Bakharev: I realize that my initial response was dismissive of you concerns, but I've had time to think more about it. My intention was never to be outright uncivil in those summaries. At first, I tried to communicate for over a year with the users, but as they use several dynamic IP ranges, I'm not sure they ever even saw those attempts. (Yet another reason I support mandatory registration, btw.) In time, my summaries evolved to provoke a response from the user by referencing some of their previous comments they added to articles, which could be strange and/or unintentionally funny. In time, I realized that they probably didn't even know that such a thing as edit summaries existed, so I kept them as a way of amusing myself and other editors who have to revert the user's edits. I now realize that some other their comments that I reference are over 3 years old, and most other editors, like you, won't have any context whatsoever. So again, if you can be specific about what exactly you find offensive, I'll try to either remove or tone down those parts, while remaining informative enough so that other editors who encounter this vandal/troll/CIR user will understand that this is an LTA who needs to be reverted on sight. Perhaps that means I'll have to finally draft that LTA report so that I can link to it in a much shorter edit summary. BilCat (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I have checked the /64 range and indeed there seems to be a long range of similar unsourced edits and nothing else. I have left warnings on User talk:2601:601:9800:76:D082:64C8:3A98:328F hope he or she would get it (I cannot see any evidence they were warned before). If the pattern persists I will block the range and if needed the other ranges there those edits are coming from. Please if you note them first drop me (or any other administrator or WP:AIV board) a note. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Alex Bakharev: Ok, I will. And see this edit, which includes a mention of "crews", something I haven't seen in a very long time, and a mention of a new nickname. They may actually be watching my user page, or it could be a coincidence. As I said, these go back over 5 years, and most of my warnings go back almost as far. And yes, I did consult several admins at that time, and periodically since then. I don't recall if I ever reported them to ANI, but probably not. I did check an early target of their vandalism, and found this typical edit. I also warned the user at that time (June 2016). Note that the nicknames change over time, a popular one with them being "Nastya". The /64 range, Special:Contributions/2601:601:8A00:B461::/64, contains a lot of their usual targets from that period. This edit is typical of their church edits, which are apparently totally false. BilCat (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked this range for one month. That range has the last edit in 2016 so I guess there is no reason for block Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Also blocked this range Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I realized the 2016 range was old, but was merely including it so as to give you an idea of the type and scope of edits they made. Thanks for blocking those, and I'll let you know if they show up again. BilCat (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

reverted edit in MAZ-200

Hi Bil,

actually, this edit was not even completly wrong. (That's why I did not undo it.) It's true, there have been soviet made diesel truck prototypes in the 1930s, for example the Я-5 "Коджу" - even with a russian diesel engine. Because of WWII they did not enter mass production, and after the war the soviets had the Detroit Diesel 4-71 (or the metric copy YaAZ-204) two stroke diesel engines. Maybe we need a better explanation or a source (I could provide some good russian literature), but at the moment the absolute formulation ("first truck...") is wrong. My English is ok, but I lack some practice for the linguistic subtleties. Maybe we could find a better formulation for that.

Thanks for keeping an eye on the topic (the user anyway produces a lot of trash - I know) and all the best, --Druschba 4 (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I usually just revert them on sight, and they aren't ever completely right. They have been making a lot of "product X was the first to do Y" edits lately, and sometimes the lengths they go to invent a "first" is quite laughable. In all cases the edits are unsourced, and I remove them on that basis if nothing else. Anyway, just raise the issue on the article's talk page, and ping me.when you do, and we'll see if we can figure out the best way to reword it. (Btw, this is the same.user referred to in the posts preceding this one.) BilCat (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I know about the user and the >quality< of the edits. It's rare to find one completly true. I have most of the pages on my watchlist and I rewrote some of his "articles" regarding russian trucks. I'm just not regulary active on en.WP, because there is a good bunch ob work at my homebase (de.WP). And of course it is more convenient to write in a native language.

I'll simply add a few sentences about the MAZ-200 with appropriate sources in the next few days. That will work out. But better not at 4 a.m. :) Regards, --Druschba 4 (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again, and for whatever you've done to clean up their damage in the past. Do they also edit on any other Wikipedias such as German or Russian? I stick to English Wikipedia, as it's the only language I'm fluent in. For all my familiarity with the user's work, I still haven't figured them out yet. Some of their edits to Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox church articles are just strange. BilCat (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not active in ru.WP, apart from a bit maintanace stuff like file moving through commons or fixing links. My spoken russian is not to bad and I'm able to read technical books, manuals, drawings and all that kind of things. But writing in russian is pretty tiring, just because not beeing used to the russian keyboard and not having it on my laptop. So I do not know what's going on there. In addition: Russians know a lot more about their own vehicles and there are more than enough users on ru.WP working on this topic. There is no really need fo me to be there. So I do not know about activities there.

To my knowledge, the IP range/the user we're talking about is not active in the German Wikipedia.

Well, it's time to sleep, definitely. Thanks for the nice chat and have a good night later on. --Druschba 4 (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

No problem, I was just curious if you had run across them elsewhere. Take care, and happy editing after your sleep. BilCat (talk) 03:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Re Kratos XQ-58 Valkyrie drone drops a drone

Hi Bilcat
I've returned, and sourced, that edit you correctly reverted as un-sourced. But, is Popular Mechanics an RS for the drone-launched-drone paragraph, here? Which I have used, or is this better? Regards, 220 of ^ßorg 13:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm. not certain about either source, but they'll do when a better one isn't available. This is better, but it's behind a paywall after five free article views on that site per month. (With some workarounds to bypass the views restrictions). BilCat (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Re. reverted edit adding a photo to the History of Canada section of the Union Jack page

Hi BilCat, Would you mind giving a more detailed explanation of why you think adding this photo isn't relevant to this article? It's a photo of a historical version of the British union flag being flown at a former British fort in Toronto, Ontario, Canada and I'm adding it to the "History of Canada" section of the "Union Flag" page. The first sentence of the section directly references this exact flag's use in Canada with citation: "The predecessor to the Union Jack, the flag of Great Britain, has been used in British colonies in Canada since its adoption in 1707.("History of the National Flag of Canada". canada.ca. Department of Canadian Heritage. 4 February 2019. Archived from the original on 12 September 2019. Retrieved 27 November 2019.)" This seems more than ample relevance. Thanks --Bay & Gables (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Because the photo itself says none of that. It's just a photo of the old flag flying from a building. BilCat (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Braves Uniforms

The Braves are only wearing those throwbacks the opening week so it's not uniform change for the rest of the season. That section appears to just concentrate on the primary uniforms that are used throughout the season. It would be great if they added that look to the permanent rotation though. --Nemov (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere? I knew nothing about it, as it was just a different uniform. It's not even in the 2021 season article, wherd such things are often ment Anyway, I'd love to see that uniform updated to a current style (button-down) and worn as a year-long alternate uniform. BilCat (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

No criticism of the F-35 allowed!

Could I ask you to review this recent edit. There seem to be a bit of an effort to not allow any criticism of this fighter recently, even by WP:RS. - Ahunt (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Just so that IP's don't figure out that we're the same person, ;) I have to disagree with you on this one. That source is editorializing, and puts words in people's mouths, instead of quoting them directly, in order to make them say what he wants. If we can find a source that actually reports what they actually said, that would be preferable. BilCat (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I'll see if the actual quotes are out there. - Ahunt (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know much about the subject, but I found this source quite useful. M.Bitton (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, MB. It definitely presents the other viewpoint to the disputed source, especially on taking the general's words out of context. I haven't watched the referenced video yet, but will when I get a chance later. BilCat (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all your thoughts on this issue. I concede the point! - Ahunt (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

No worries! BilCat (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Bell Aircraft

The images were added by a paid editor, and I deleted a bunch of them. The drama of the paid editing, low-quality images and multiple accounts all unfolded here. It's starting again now at User talk:Dominic#Please stop. The only think I care about is the quality of Wikipedia, and if someone adds low-quality images, I will delete them. Urgg! Hey cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I figured something was going on, and now I know what. BilCat (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

edit to GE H-Series page

Hello, I'm BilCat. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, General Electric H-Series, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi BilCat I could not determine how to save a response on your talk page, so trying again.

I myself am the reliable source, seeing that any supporting documents are proprietary to my customer. I am a DER (FAA Designated Engineering Representative}, as can be verified on the FAA site here: http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/designees_delegations/designee_types/media/DERDirectory.pdf I wrote the Flight Test Flight manual for operation of the GE-Czech H-80 engines in a customer's airplane, using proprietary and not public operating instructions from GE. You can compare the cockpit controls of the Nextant conversion of the Beech C-90, which has the same electrical controls. Unfortunately, you would have to review the Flight Manual Supplement for that conversion, so would have to contact an owner. My information is firsthand experience based. Thank you for your concern for the truth. Ian Hollingsworth DER Flight Test Pilot 704 8th Street Ramona, CA 92065 cell: 760-419-9985 xegl@cox.net or ianslogin@cox.net DERLaird (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

COI edits on Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II

We have a new user whose sole edits all look like WP:COI sanitization by the L-M marketing department to me. All his edits were cited changes, except the last one which was a removal of cited criticism. I reverted just the last one, but I wondered what you thought. Perhaps they should all go as COI? - Ahunt (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Have taken a look and well think my edit summary speaks for itself. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting all that! I didn't think it passed the "smell test" and I warned the user for COI, but I really wanted a second opinion before taking the whole thing out. - Ahunt (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The better template to use might have been {{uw-paid1}} (which requires disclosure in more forceful terms). Additionally, looking at the nature of the sources is helpful in cases like this. "However, costs have decreased significantly with production increases. The unit cost of a Lot 14 F-35A is $77.9 million, an over 70 % decrease from the Lot 1 cost." was sourced to a PDF self-published by Lockheed-Martin (also note the absence of information about what the cost of a lot 1 unit was to compare)... The next statement, "However, recent improvements to the HMDS have resulted in reduced weight to address the safety concern."; is sourced to defensesystems.com, which is run by a PR firm. The rest isn't that bad (PDF on the site of the DOT&E, Bloomberg, Air Force Association), but still, the first two sources are what I'd call "reasonable doubt"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Yep, those were my red flags, too, as well as the general trend of sanitizing. - Ahunt (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Hoggardhigh activity

Hi there, they've popped up on User:2603:6081:7840:FA00:7CD5:B04C:ED29:5EFA, User:2603:6081:7840:FA00:7C7E:497B:C2A9:9777 and User:2603:6081:7840:FA00:3136:C504:9235:660D. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

...and User:2603:6081:7840:FA00:25EE:877C:2FFC:20BE. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

An interesting choice of reading material. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Yup. Maybe they should try User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior! (#76 is a good one for us.) BilCat (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hmm! Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Regentcraft entry removal

Hi BilCat,

I was wondering why you removed the short section on Regentcraft that I added yesterday. It wasn't heavily promotional. Just facts. Please let me know what your issue is.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TooMuchDrag (talk • contribs) 18:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding to my previous edit

I am aware that this edit is NOT an acronym but its already branded in all caps. Is there a true reason why it should be kept without the all caps? 20chances (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes: MOS:TMRULES. - Ahunt (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Aspect Ratio

There is nothing "novel" or "original" about calculating aspect ratio of an aircraft. The formula is AR = span² / area. This is no different from calculating wing loading, span loading, ect. If you doubt me I can cite dozens of aerospace engineering textbooks with this formula. Please stop reverting my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.75.214.194 (talk)

@73.75.214.194: We don't do our own calculations. In addition, the parameter is generally only used for sailplanes. If you don't cite a reliable published source for each aircraft type you add the information to, it will be removed. If you persist, you risk being blocked. BilCat (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you require citations for Span Loading, wing loading, ect? Because virtually all of the aircraft pages on wikipedia do not have citations for that. Ditto for AR which has no sources for most sailplanes. Would I be blocked if I removed all of these uncited calculations on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.75.214.194 (talk • contribs)

Probably, as that would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I presume that the other figures were added using the sources cited in the specs section. If you consult a source listed there, and it has the aspect ratio, then you can add it, noting in your edit summary which source you used. BilCat (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Not to disrupt things here, but see also the policy at WP:CALC: Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations. - Ahunt (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

thank you. I thought it was insane that a calculation every aeroengineer has memorized would count as original research. Especially when its a figure that is rarely published for aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.75.214.194 (talk • contribs)

I don't know enough about it to know if it's routine enough. Generally in the specs section, we require every listed parameter to be sourced, as often their are factors for each aircraft that might make the calculations more difficult. But if you believe aspect ratio is simple enough to qualify for WP:CALC, I'll stop removing it. Alternatively, we can discuss it at WT:AIR and get a broader consensus. I will note that we had an issue with this recently where a user was making bad calculations, and it was quite a mess to clean up, which is why I reverted in this case. BilCat (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Brazilian Navy - 3D models

Hi, I saw that you reverted my contributions. The wikimedia commons only supports simple 3D objects. Both files were simplified and added only for educational use as 3d printable versions of the ships. I think that these files are useful and interesting contributions for both articles. Rodrigo Padula (talk) 06:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

That they are available on Commons is sufficient. They don't add anything useful to the article itself. But if you disagree, you're welcome to raise the issue on the articles' talk pages. BilCat (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

USAF system codes

The template you moved covers the entire "system" sequence, not just the "weapon systems". Could you please move it back to "USAF system codes"? - ZLEA _T\^C 18:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. You linked it to Weapon system, which you now say is incorrect, so it was understandably confusing. BilCat (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I've CSDed the title. You should be able to move it shortly. BilCat (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@ZLEA: After waiting over 3 and a half hours(!!!) for an admin to delete this, I just did a manual swap instead. BilCat (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

ANI

There's a complaint about you on ANI, in case you want to look. The boomerang has already returned, though. Bishonen | tålk 14:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Thanks, and I'm glad I was offline for the whole thing. The only comment I would have made is that, in my view, it is Communism itself that is dehumanizing, and my comments reflected that view. I certainly wasn't making any aspersions against Chinese people in general. Thankfully, you and the other commenters recognized that, and I do appreciate it. BilCat (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

TB2

Hello BilCat In which section can i put potential operators with respecting WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS guideline's? Cengizsogutlu (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cengizsogutlu: See KAI T-50 Golden Eagle#Possible sales for an example. BilCat (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

thanks Cengizsogutlu (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Article facing

Bill do you happen to know if we have a guideline, regarding the preference for article facing aircraft in the info boxes? - FOX 52 ^talk! 02:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Per se, no, but it's based on the principle found in MOS:IMAGELOCATION: "It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text, but do not achieve this by reversing the image, which creates a false presentation." BilCat (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Awesome - Thank you sir much appreciate it FOX 52 ^talk! 03:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Issa Rae

I literally sourced it, what are you talking about? Rusted AutoParts 21:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I know, my diff was old, and I reverted myself. Sorry. :( BilCat (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

MWh vs MWth

Hi,

This is perhaps the first "user talk" message I've sent, so I'm probably violating all sorts of conventions - apologies in advance. Furthermore, if I'm providing too much detail - well, that's my nature, plus in a non-interactive exchange I figure best to provide all I've got upfront. Hope that's okay. (And let's hope there's no typos by me below - on extra or missing "h" could invalidate my whole message ...)

Was looking up the S8G reactor, saw the current text "The 220 MWh S8G reactor", wondered if "MWh" should be "MWth" (or simply MW).

Checking history, appears you reverted another user's change to MWth back to MWh: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S8G_reactor&type=revision&diff=994805283&oldid=994749891

Given my understanding of the units, I believe that MWh is not the correct unit here.

MWh is Megawatt-hours, which is a unit of energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt-hour). Though a reactor could be rated on its energy output, say over some years between refueling, it would be more usual to list its power rating (as noted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt#Distinction_between_watts_and_watt-hours)

MW (megawatt) is a unit of power (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt#Megawatt) typical for such power plants. MWth would be megawatt-thermal - the "h" is not "hour" in this case, but short for "thermal". This would be the actual heat output of a power plant, which would always be higher than the MWe, or megawatt-eletrical, when the heat is converted to electrical power. I mention this because if we're not sure, MW would be the safest bet.

A search outside of Wikipedia found this page, http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Nuclear/US_Naval_Reactors.htm, which lists the S8G as "Power: 220 MWth or 60,000 SHP". Otherwise, the size and weight information it provides matches what is the Wikipedia article.

I also note that the SG6 reactor page uses "MW" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S6G_reactor).

Sincerely, Maurice Mauricef (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mauricef: I reverted the IP because the change was unexplained, so I kept the status quo. The best thing to do is to raise the issue on the article's talk page so that regular editors there can participate. Thanks, and you did fine to post here first. BilCat (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@BilCat: Thanks for the reply, clarification, and guidance. Per the last, I've raised it on the article's talk page. If you want to clear up my earlier long input on your user page, feel free to (or I could for you). Mauricef (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Your opinion

Can I get your opinion? Would this be worth going to an RfC? My beef has nothing to do with Indigenous People. I'm just pushing back again what seems to be a shoehorning-in of out of scope content. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a bit out of my area of expertise. I did look at it yesterday, and it's quite a mess. I guess an RfC depends on how much time and effort you're willing to spend on the issue. Sorry I can't be of more help. BilCat (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

X-62A Addition (reference needed)

Regarding the X-62A changes on List of X-planes; the letter changing the designation was signed on 14 Jun by Lt Gen Nahom, AF/A8 (Plans and Programs). I have a digital copy of that letter but I'll just wait until USAF Public Affairs publishes something, then add the reference when it is available as a press release online. SurlySlipper (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Stadium College Sports

There are a few sources for the name changes. The first of these is DirecTV. If you go to the channels on DirecTV, you will see them listed as Stadium College Sports. Also if you go to zap2it, you will see they've changed the names to Stadium College Sports and have changed the abbreviations to SCSA, SCSC, and SCSP. Then there's source #3. They've released a new network logo. It can be seen here, which is also another source- Bend Broadband in Oregon. This is their communications blog. https://blog.bendbroadband.com/residential/2021/06/14/fox-college-sports-to-become-stadium-college-sports/ Bigddan11 (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Free Brownie

Very good format for userpage WarInTheDesert (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up on MWh vs MWth

Hi, referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BilCat/archive23#MWh_vs_MWth

Per that conversation, I added to the article's talk page the explanation of why this minor - but meaningful - edit looks correct to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:S8G_reactor

That was June 8th.

How long should I wait for someone to agree with me before making the change?

Thanks for guidance as I learn the ropes!

Mauricef (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

If you've had no objections by this time, go ahead and make the change, and note in your edit summary that you had no objections on the the talk page. BilCat (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Go figure! As I checked my edit, discovered someone changed it 3 days after I brought it up on talk page; they made it MWth, which is a correct unit and they noted this in the edit comments. No mention of my bringing it up - oh well! Mauricef (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

That happens sometimes! Wikipedia can be crazy at times. BilCat (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up on the Hayabusa

My addition is consistent with content of this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_Air_Force#Indonesian_War_of_Independence_/_Netherlands_'Police_Action'_(1945%E2%80%931949)

Dates for USMC use of RIM-2 Terrier

You said, "or more of your recent edits to the page RIM-2 Terrier did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policies."

Now I could break out my service record showing my assignment to the 1st MAAM Battalion to prove that the USMC used Terriers into the 1960s, or as I stated, I was there. As the article stands, the dates are wrong. Whoever wrote the original article created the first error, I was simply trying to correct it.

So it stands.

James M Driskell Major USMC (Ret) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmdriskell (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) Just to jump in here. Thanks for your note but all claims have to be verifiable. We do not accept original research on Wikipedia, so "I was there, so I know stuff" is not good enough to add claims to articles. - Ahunt (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Manual of Style

Thanks for the revert. I messed that up.Editor2020 (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for admitting it instead of just digging in. BilCat (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

"Propellor" corrections

Hello BilCat, Thanks for your comment and advice. I think I was doing the corrections more quickly than I should have, and didn't pick up that that particular edit had affected a citation. Will do better! Aerohydro (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

No worries. BilCat (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Wisk Page

Hi BilCat, you recently reverted several minor changes to the Wisk Cora page (most of them were factual corrections) and I was curious why / how you recommend those changes to be made? In particular, the information in the infobox about the aircraft, such as the first flight and the status of the aircraft (these are now incorrect again - I provided citations for this information). I will gladly welcome your suggestions on a more appropriate way to go about this, I was just trying to correct inaccurate information. Thank you in advance! InterestingPilot (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@InterestingPilot: The source you provided did not make it clear to me that the first flight of the Cora occurred in 2017. I found several other sources that stated that the first flight occurred on March 13, 2018, and I cited one of them in the article. (The article's previous claim of March 23, 2018 was unsourced, and was possibly a typo of "13".) If you dispute that date, the best place to discuss that going forward is on the article's talk page. Were there any other changes that I missed? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hoggardhigh

Now editing at User:173.93.123.163 and User:173.93.110.93. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Nicely cleaned up between the three of us. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Three? BilCat (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ahunt: pitched in too. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

He often does, but I didn't spot it this time. BilCat (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Philippine Army

This reversion by you caught my eye. I'm not familiar with the details here, but I remembered hearing reports of Philippine involvement at the rime and, on checking the 1999 East Timorese crisis article I see that this reversion appears to conflict with content in that article. The following sources are cited in support of the assertion re Philippine involvement asserted there as resulting in 4 killed and 4 wounded: . Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Short answer: It's already there as International Force East Timor. BilCat (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

References

TF-8A Crusader

Hi Bilcat, to clarify my edit, that aircraft I said is labeled incorrectly on the F-8 Crusader page is not the TF-8A. There were actually 2 different aircraft used by NASA from the F-8 series for the Supercritical Wing program. F-8A N810NA formerly USN BuAer tail number 141353 which is what that picture is, and another aircraft, the TF-8A with the USN BuAer tail number 143710. Here is a picture of TF-8A, Bu.No. 143170 fitted with the SCW and in NASA colors, though because it was USN property doesn't bare an FAA tail number like N810NA. I highly recommend taking a look through the book "Vought F-8 Crusader: Development of the Navy’s First Supersonic Jet Fighter". That book is an absolutely incredible resource for F-8 Crusader information and where I learned that there actually were two SCW F-8 aircraft

MissKay1994 (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Your close at Talk:Nashville, Tennessee#Requested move 3 August 2021

A guideline is not a policy and can absolutely be overridden by local consensus. A guideline is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Your reasoning for closing is flawed. I would recommend you revert your close and allow the discussion to run longer. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

No. The article will not be moved permanently, regardless of the outcome of the discussion. Allowing the discussion to continue is an exercise in futility. Appeal if you want to. BilCat (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Saturn V revert

In this revert, you undid an edit where an IP changed {{convert|310,000|lb}} to {{convert|140,000|kg}}. I originally was going to revert him as well, but references 4 and 5 cited in the Technology section, 2nd paragraph, both give the mass in metric tons. Worth re-instating? Tarl N. (discuss) 21:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

If it's about converting from the original measurements, then we could use "flip". BilCat (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Yup, I believe it's normal policy to feed the original cited units into convert. If there is some reason for wanting to have lbs before kg, then order=flip could be added. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Done. Found another use of the same citations, in the infobox, changed that one too. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. BilCat (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism accusation

Hello,

You recently left a message on my talk page accusing me of vandalising the page onAppalachia. I fail to see how what I did was vandalism; all I did was make the section in question more specific (replacing "Canada" with "Newfoundland and Labrador"). As other parts of the article regularly mentioned specific U.S. States, I thought it appropriate to mention the specific Canadian province in question in order to maintain consistency. --LordNimon (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@LordNimon: If you look carefully at the edits you made, as seen here, you'll see that you added "Newfoundland and Labrador" in two places, one at the top of the article. It appeared to constitute vandalism, which is what the notice says. My apologies. BilCat (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts

Given latest developments, to soon for my edit? - FOX 52 ^talk! 00:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Probably so. I imagine the roundel will be changed eventually, but basically this is a regime change, not a new country, so I'm assuming. everything stays the same until they change it. This probably applies to equipment also, though it's more complicated too. BilCat (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

R-2180

Please note, the infobox lead photo I posted is NOT a R-2180-A. I made a full description on the original wikimedia upload, as well as a separate uploaded photo of the Pratt & Whitney placard we display publicly, and I suggest you fully read both. It is however more than adequate as a generic photo of a R-2180 for an article on the P & W R-2180-A.

If you secure a better IP free photograph of the -A model you are of course free to use it with the caption R-2180-A, but until then the truthful caption on my work is "R-2180". You would be well advised to assume good faith before blindly reverting.

I have several issues with this page and I'm considering a rewrite and consolidation of the overall topic. Collaboration is always preferred and appreciated.

Ssaco (talk) 07:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ssaco: Unfortunately, a museum placard isn't a reliable published sources. You need to cite reliable published sources that state what you claim. In order to avoid working at cross purposes, especially if you intend to do some "consolidation" , it's best if you present your issues on the article's talk page, and we'll work through the issues together using all available sources. However, if you keep making changes unilaterally, you'll end up being blocked for edit warring. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Hoggardhigh's latest

User:173.93.107.4. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still amazed at how much effort they put in to making bad edits! Some people just have too much time on their hands. BilCat (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Bewildering, isn't it? Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Yup. BilCat (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

@CAPTAIN RAJU: Thanks very much. It's hard to believe I've been on Wikipedia for 15 years! BilCat (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Flying wings

I wouldn't feed the troll if I were you. The less said to it, the sooner it will get bored. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

You're probably right. BilCat (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Insular area (my error)

This revert by you corrected an error by me. I must have either mis-read the diff or rushed the edit in response to something unrelated -- I don't know which. My error. Sorry. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

No problem - I've done that too many times myself! BilCat (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Airline and aviation IP

I don't have time to hang around and keep track of that IP you just thanked me about. If they continue causing issues and disruption, ignoring policies, MOSs, guidelines and infobox instructions, feel free to ping me going forward if you like. Canterbury Tail talk 21:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I only follow a few airline articles such as Delta and Northwest, but as the latter seems to be one of their common targets, I'll certainly let you know if they edit there again. And thanks for being willing to handle this directly. BilCat (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Northrop YF-23 edit reversion

Hello, I am not contesting the principle WP:RETAIN, but you should realize that I did it (canceled -> cancelled) to bring it in line with Category:Cancelled military aircraft projects of the United States, which the page is in. It would be nice for everything in this category to match... but it might be easier to rename the category. Or not, since who cares really. HarryKernow (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

HarryKernow There is also MOS:TIES, which states that topics with strong national ties should use their local variants of English. If anything, Category:Cancelled military aircraft projects of the United States should use the "canceled" spelling. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Zlea, as that is a good point. I don't usually mess with categories, as I find navboxes more useful personally. But if someone were to propose renaming the affected US categories, I cdrta wouldn't object. But it's probably not worth it. Most readers don't pay any attention to the categories. and it's the consistency within the article text itself that really matters. BilCat (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Varieties of English

Hello Bilcat. Thanks for your response. I hope this message gets to you as I'm not exactly certain on the process for this. Apologies if I upset the applecart. I wasn't aware that I had actually changed anything, rather my intention was just to add a bit more detail in respect of Commander Samson who was a rather special individual. Many years ago I was told by one of my flying instructors to remember that we flew aeroplanes. And I suppose the habit has stuck and I use it automatically, although I rarely use the term aerodrome! And I suspect I need to work on my signatures. Regards --NB262 (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)NB262

@NB262: No worries. Wikipedia takes a little getting used to. We all try to help each other out as we can. BilCat (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank You for the cookies

Much appreciated --NB262 (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)NB262

Bayraktar UAV

Hello, the page Bayraktar Tactical UAS must be moved to Bayraktar UAV, because Bayraktar series of drones are not only tactical but they're also MALE and HALE class. I tried to move the page to Bayraktar UAV but it gave me an error citing that this page already exist. How can I solve this problem, without copy-pasting stuff? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slh7477 (talk • contribs)

You have to request a page move per WP:RM. BilCat (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

User:2603:7080:9301:a7d:543d:c19c:96c5:4875

I saw that you reverted the above mentioned IP editors edit to Old English, as it was unsourced. It seems this editor has gone through a number of different articles, adding in the same text. CosmicJacuzzi (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

USS Yorktown and Lexington

I replaced info that was incorrect. Reverting changes because the default edit summary was left alone probably isn’t the best thing to do. In the future I will double check to make sure edit summaries are filled out GansMans (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable published source for your claim. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

USS Lexington

Let’s find a middle ground here. If I find a source saying the namesake for CV-16 is the original USS Lexington CV-2, can the edit stay? Can you help me properly cite the source so we can fix this? GansMans (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy to help you properly cite the source. However, it needs to specifically state that the battle is not the namesake. I'm going offline for my now sleep period, but if you'd post it on your talk page, the other editor who warned you, Wolfkeeper, may see it and be able to help, assuming he's not asleep by then too. BilCat (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, GansMans and the IP range it appears they've been using have now been blocked. Hopefully when it expires the reverting will stop and they'll discuss. I have been looking for sources, but haven't found anything that doesn't seem to mirror the association site. It would be great to find a navy/gov't site, a newspaper or a book that confirms these names as being for the previous ships. So far it just seems to be the Navsource ref this user added, but isn't that primarily a photo index site? Anyway, we'll see what, if anything, happens. If the debate continues without resolution, then I think your idea of going to wt:ships/milhist would be the best course of action. Have a good sleep Bilkeeper. ;-) - wolf 23:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Oops! I was VERY tired when I wrote that! BilCat (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

move request from 'Template:English language sidebar' to 'Template:English language'

The reason I'm requesting a move from {{English language sidebar}} back to {{English language}} per this move request on 13 September 2021 is because I didn't realise my previous move attempt from {{History of English}} to {{English language}}, and my attempt to merge {{History of English}} with {{Description of English}} would be controversial, so my current move request shouldn't be. Anyway, I'm sorry for trying to merge the two templates together, but I didn't think that would be controversial, and I just wanted to create a navbox template for the English language, like for {{Russian language}}, {{Swedish language}}, {{Greek language}} and {{Serbo-Croatian language}}, and for certain language navbox templates on certain Wikipedia projects like on the Russian Wikipedia, and I'll try to discuss any changes on the template's talk pages before implementing them for future reference. -- PK2 (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

New CL-154-class cruiser article

Hi, could you assist me if you have the time and review the article in my sandbox at User:Tfdavisatsnetnet/sandbox ? Please leave any comments on my talk page at User_talk:Tfdavisatsnetnet/sandbox#CL-154-class_review_comments, thanks! Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't do reviews as such, but I'll be happy to take a look and tell my impressions. BilCat (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Impressions is all I ask, thanksTfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 02:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Impressions over impersonations and imposters. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

"I'm sorry. I don't do impressions. My training is in psychiatry." [9] BilCat (talk) 04:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63)

Not sure why the word "On" was removed as I was the one who inserted it first. By spotting your recent edit, I was thinking something was not right there. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it was an inadvertent edit conflict with the editor who edited after you. It happens sometimes. I've been on both sides of that myself. The only real solution is that we have to be sure to preview our edits. But even then sometimes we miss things, especially if the change is further down on the edit screen. BilCat (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Future Concert

Bill, I restored that edit and added a source at Truist Park The two bands playing are high profile so there was plenty of notable coverage of the event. Thanks for your help. - Nemov (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Facepalm BilCat (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking for help on Westinghouse Wiki-Page

Noticed an edit you made on the Westinghouse Electric Corporation Wikipedia entry and we were curious if you would be able to help us out. We have little Wikipedia editing knowledge and would appreciate any help you could provide. Adamdrain (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Fouga Magister

I see you undid my edits on the Fouga Magister article. Do you need my credentials? I can provide on request. Info I edited is true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fouga (talk • contribs) 16:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Is that your website? BilCat (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is. I literally wrote the book on the Fouga Magister and have been researching this specific aircraft for more then 20 years. I also worked on them in the Air Force. I see someone else again undid my last edit. Shame Wikipedia keeps on spreading false information on the Magister. Oh well.. :) (UTC)--Fouga (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Most of the changes you made to the page were totally uncited to any reference and the one source you added was self-published. While specific subject matter expertise can be useful, we don't accept self published works as references on Wikipedia (with a few exceptions listed at that link) and we don't accept uncited "I'm an expert, I know stuff" sort of text either, solely because it cannot be verified from reliable sources. It also leads to irreconcilable conflicts, as invariably someone else will come along and claim to be an even better expert, add more uncited text that contradicts yours and then we cannot look up a reliable source to figure out which is actually correct. If you want to cite the original works where you found that information, rather than the book or website you have written and published yourself that would be a better approach. - Ahunt (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I totally understand. Does the publisher of my book count as a "reliable independant publisher"? link: http://mmpbooks.com/shop2/fouga-magister.html If not, I'll let it rest :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fouga (talk • contribs) 12:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that. It gets a bit technical, but essentially that hinges on the nature if the publisher. If they are basically a "book printer" who prints anything you send them (like Lulu.com is, for instance) then the book would be self-published, but if the publisher actually carries out "editorial oversight" (ie they actually read it, edit it and fact check it) then the book would be completely acceptable as a reference. I think you can appreciate that anyone can write anything these days and have someone print it and bind it. It doesn't mean it is a WP:RS. - Ahunt (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

It's an established publisher of reference books, with editorial oversight. Anyway, I'll leave it at that. Anyone wishing correct info can buy my book :-p --Fouga (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Another (talk page stalker): @Fouga: I have zero knowledge of this topic but applaud your response directly above. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

B737 dorsal fin

BilCat, it is not a dorsal fin, it is a tail bumper. The housing contains hydtraulic actuator, the bumper itself and drain outlets. It has no aerodynamic properties. Ex nihil ^(talk) 07:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you're confusing "dorsal" and "ventral". Dorsal is on top of an aircraft, while ventral is below. See the first paragraph in Vertical stabilizer#Stall of the vertical tail, and the adjacent photo on a dorsal fin on an E 190. BilCat (talk) 08:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ex nihil: See The History of Dorsal Fins for a specific history of it on 737s. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

FYI

Was about to add a note that the 3RRNB report was about Helicopter carrier dispute. The ip user was reported, not you. The notice was only placed here because it's required. Sorry if it disrupted your day/evening. Cheers - wolf 08:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

No worries, I usually remove such notices irregardless. I was headed to bed then, so I just left things to carry on, which it did. Thanks for taking care of it. BilCat (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Hoggardhigh recent activity

FYI, User:Hoggardhigh seems to be periodically active as User:173.93.110.93 and User:173.93.123.163. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

AH-64 operators note

I was mainly referring to the IPer's wording here. The numbers in service for all users should be added back in the Operators section so that the top 4 users are clear. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 05:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! Facepalm I should have checked the diffs more completely. My bad. BilCat (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• You're OK. I was only trying to clarify, not cast blame, etc. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I know, and thanks. I was just acknowledging my error. Go Braves!!!! BilCat (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Flying sub edit

Im very new to edit contributions. Im confused at how my “flying sub” contribution failed to meet NPOV requirements. I posted the title, series name, episode which is playing on TV currently. Other then being a bit descriptive on creator talent, it does locate where “flying sub” is found in fiction. What part is wrong? Or is it because my edit doesn’t appear in the ref book? Toymaker8 (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Toymaker8: It looks like your edit was reverted because of the non-encyclopedic comments that you added (this has nothing to do with NPOV). The fact that it's unsourced doesn't help either. M.Bitton (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of seawolf edit

Can you explain to me why the seawolf edit was reverted? i provided a source, the United states Navy fact file, and you not only reverted the change inspite of my source but reverted it to an incorrect number of torpedo tubes with no source. It's kinda annoying to have an edit reverted at the best of times but when i have provided a good and reliable source (an official website of the united states navy) you shouldn't be reverting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.71.68 (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

My apologies. I goofed. BilCat (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Bobby Cox and a baseball editor in general

I made multiple edits to Cox today. They were deletions. Editor Wikidude10000 puts in some accomplishment for Cox but without ever referencing it. In fact, he points to list articles. WP:Circular I think covers that an article shouldn't be edited that way. I saw one of those articles, it is thinly sourced based on one reference to Baseballreference.com.

At Felipe Alou today, I reverted an edit of 1000's. Mostly because it putting in unreferenced opinion. Slow but dutiful. What does that mean? A few months back I was tangling with this same editor over George Kell. He has repeatedly put in opinions about a player or baseball at the time that almost never referenced. I see this problem all over WP, not just in baseball articles. As they are both BLPs, the Alou and Cox articles need to be sourced properly but I feel all articles need that too[10]. Want to read what can happen when some editor don't like this? See this thread[11] on my talk page.

BTW I play Strat-O-Matic baseball on my PC as a hobby. I've completed a full 1960 replay. Alou was on the Giants that year. My SOM replays account for my editing lots of player articles associated with MLB between 1952 and 1993. Fun baseball fact- 1993 Texas Ranger Jeff Bronkey is the only major leaguer to have born in Afghanistan....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you expect of me in this, other than making me aware of the issue. I edit some sports related articles, mostly those related to the Braves and a few other sports teams I like. However, I'm not deep into the sports projects, and beyond BLP in general, I'm not that experienced in the area. You might drop a note on User:Muboshgu's talk page. He's an admin with a lot of baseball article experience, including at least one FA. He may be better able to advise or intervene in this.

I'm still enjoying my "high" from the Braves WS win this year. The Astros knocked the Braves out of several playoffs back in the 20'00s when they were in the NL, so this was a sweet win, along with knocking off the Dodgers. The only way it could have been sweeter is if they'd beaten those darn Yankees! :) BilCat (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I just remembered that the last Braves game I attended was in the 2004 National League Division Series against the Astros. The Braves won that game, but lost the series. So yeah, this was a sweet series to win! BilCat (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Bill I wasn't expecting anything. I was just explaining things in a friendly note. Our paths have crossed occasionally. Cheers!...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (it wasn't me) Kleuske (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm headed to bed, so hopefully it'll be settled by the time I return. BilCat (talk) 10:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For your apology to GansMans; behavior like you showed is how conflicts get defused, and once-antagonists become allies. Props to you for that; I hope to be able to follow your example. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I wish I had done that earlier before it got out of hand. Pride is a dangerous thing sometimes! Thankfully, I have a Father Who keeps me on a short leash, when I let Him. I often forget, especially in the heat of the moment, that there's a real person with real feelings on the other end of the internet.connection. I'm always grateful when others treat me kindly in return for my bad behavior. Forgiveness is a gift none of us deserve, but oh how grateful we are when we receive it anyway. BilCat (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

You should pin this post in a quote box at the top of this page. These are quite humble, yet very wise words everyone could benefit from. Cheers Bil - wolf 09:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

HMS Ark Royal (R09) edit

You cut my addition (below) to the article about the British aircraft carrier: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elendil's Heir (talk • contribs) 20:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

In popular culture

The carrier appears at the conclusion in the 2015 movie The Man from U.N.C.L.E. Although it is not mentioned by name, its partial pennant number "09" is visible when the ship launches a missile attack.

You said it was "unsourced, minor appearance, speculative." I provided the source; "minor" is in the eye the beholder (and in my experience this is the kind of interesting detail that people appreciate on Wiki); and it is not speculative, as I saw it myself and described where in the movie it occurred.

Elendil's Heir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elendil's Heir (talk • contribs) 20:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - please see WP:PROVEIT and also WP:TRIVIA for why we don't include unsourced "I saw it myself" trivia in the encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, per WP:MILPOP: "In popular culture' sections should be avoided unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture." BilCat (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

US

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Don't you think abbreviations for herbaria useful? Currently, Wikispecies has already been playing the role well (species:US), but adding information to the more conspicuous project will be more helpful for readers. I was not active at Wikispecies nor acquainted with its contents until recent times, so Wikipedia can be first clue. These kinds of abbreviation are well-organized at Index Herbariorum of New York Botanical Gardens and the US is one of the most frequent that appear in literature. In the same context, at least abbreviations of herbaria that house world-wide specimens such as K (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew) and P (National Museum of Natural History, France) deserve inclusion together with the US. --Eryk Kij (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

That's not how DAB pages work. Sorry. BilCat (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

What I am concerned about is whether we can give information more efficiently to readers. I will give up if there were persuasive evidence that many readers can reach information of the repository abbreviation directly in the Index Herbariorum or Wikispecies. Unless we have it, don't you think better solution is the inclusion of them? Or do you have any confidence that my intent obviously violates the current guideline for disambiguation? --Eryk Kij (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Linking to the general article about the Smithsonian Institution is of absolutely no help at all to the reader, which I why I removed it. Is there another, more relevant article that you can link to instead? BilCat (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I admit my linking was too general. I found more relevant United States National Herbarium and have added there information about the abbreviation. Does it meet your requirement? --Eryk Kij (talk) 08:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it does, but I can't guarantee someone else might object. BilCat (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The question I would ask is this: how plausible is it that someone searching for an article about the herbariorum at Kew Gardens would expect to find it in an article named "K", or that they would be able to find it in a list called "K"? It seems rather implausible to me, but if others feel it really is plausible, then the entry on the disambiguation page is justified. -- Dr Greg  talk  16:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Greg: I don't know. That's probably better discussed on the K DAB anyway. BilCat (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@BilCat and Dr Greg: Please see van Steenis (1975), Verdcourt (1976), Seigler & Ebinger (2006), Wood, Lorence & Kiehn (2016) and so on. Although these symbols are employed in innumerable materials including the above-mentioned articles and can be clues for (especially type) specimen search, almost all of such materials do not explain about them at all! Scientific names are essentially based on type specimens, so it is not ignorable which institution (in botany, herbarium) houses types. As for herbaria, those like A (recently integrated with GH etc.), B, BM, E, G, K, L, MO, NY, P, S, US and W hold worldwide collections and their indications appear very frequently in literature. As I said before, detailed information about these indications is available at Index Herbariorum or Wikispecies, but I did not know the existence of the former and I did not expect that the latter contains such information. On the other hand, Wikipedia disambiguation pages can be first clues when readers are at a loss. That's why I think they need to be mentioned in disambiguations pages. --Eryk Kij (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Saab 39 Gripen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why would you need a consensus for adding a simple production table? Walle83 (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Because it's unnecessary, besides being ugly and clunky. BilCat (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Same table can be found in the Eurofighter Article ecs Walle83 (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

And they are ugly there too. BilCat (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Well I dont think your view about whats ugly or not has any say in the matter Walle83 (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I've opposed the table, so it's up to you to get a consensus on the article's talk page. If other users agree it's useful, you can add it then. BilCat (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.