Jump to content

User talk:BilCat/archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Downwash

Thanks for pointing that article out - what a mess! I just happened to have a ref - hope you like the new version! A little shorter but cited at least. - Ahunt (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Much, much, much better! Thanks - that should save it if the Prod nom decides to take it to AFD. - BilCat (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Glad that helped. He can't AfD it now, it has reliable third party refs!

EUROPEAN AIR GROUP


Bill,

I edited an Article about the Eurpean Air Group (EAG) that was posted a while ago on Wikipedia by someone who does not work with this organisation. I work for this organisation and was tasked by my boss to edit a more ' in depth' and up-to-date article on the EAG. That is why I edited the previous article. It was 'blocked' by you because of suspicion that it was' apparent text dump from another site, uncited, likely to be copyrighted'. I assure you that this is not the case. All text and images is 'EAG-work' and published by me as appointed ' EAG Wiki-publisher' solely with the intention to enhance the ' brand awareness' for the EAG. For this reason I will now undo your 'blockage' because I think this will do just to the accuracy of the contents of this page and the public has the right to be optimaly informed about us. Keesbleijerveld (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

--THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE has sent you a Christmas cookie! May its sugary goodness fill you with warmth and love this holiday season. But don't eat too many!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:Wikipedia:CONTRIB/Holidays/General3}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks! Glad to see you're still around. - BilCat (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

If a subject has been discussed before, you should point to where. You can't just say Viggen shouldn't be translated correctly without giving any reasons why. John Anderson (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I did give a reason - "the "the" is not translated into English for names". I'll be posting my the links to the other dicsusions, on the talk page, within the hour. - BilCat (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
That's no reason, that's an opinion or a claimed fact. It's based on lack of knowledge of the Swedish language. John Anderson (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
No, it's based on knowledge of the English language - we don't translate the article in names in cases such as this. - BilCat (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we do – if that's the correct way of translating it. A name doesn't normally have an article, but the names of Swedish fighter planes are in definite form and must therefor be translated with 'the' or you will not get a correct translation. It's not an English name for the plane, it's an explanation of what the Swedish name would mean in English, and therefor the name should be translated literaly. John Anderson (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The discussion is open on the article's talk page. Can you repost your last comment there? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Same issue with JAS 39. There is a section on its talk page for this named "The Griffin", although not started recently. Anderson has not posted anything there. -fnlayson (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Why should I post anything about JAS 39? That issue was already settled, before I made any change to that article. Now we just have to come to the conclusion that it's the same with Viggen. John Anderson (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Now you're being disingenuous. There was no consensus to support the changes you made to the JAS 39 article, as Fnlyson just pointed out, neither is there one at Saab 37 to support your changes. You have yet to provide a source that states that Swedish fighter names must be translated with the article. We've provided sources that translate the names without the article, and the consesnus supports that. End of discussion, unless you can provide those reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2010 (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.

What's the story?

Just one question, why are you working so hard against me? If your aim is to remove me from the project then you are doing very well. I learned long ago that it is not a 'clever dicks' competition here. It would be a shame after the effort that I have put in over the last three years but you seem determined to denigrate all that. Mystified. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not working "working so hard against you" - I'm working hard to be accurate, and to improve WP, as are you. If you want to leave WP because you perceive me as being agaisnt you, that's your choice. It won't change the 3 years you've dedicated to improving WP, and you have done a lot. I do hope you stay, but I'm not trying to avoid stepping on your highly sensitive toes either over minor edits. As to the Power Jets W.1, I think it's better because of our "edit dissusions", and that's what's important - the product, not our egos. - BilCat (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
No ego here or sensitive toes, please note that editors are allowed to object at all times. No point discussing splitting tiny start class articles either although I note the splits were curiously nationality based. You might have noticed that I stopped creating the G91.Y article because of your italics crusade. Absolutely no point me creating articles for you to red pen the commas later. I've done my bit, no blocks and I've always been civil despite frequent goading from many. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Gary, perhaps you should refrain from posting on my talk page until your perspective changes to incorporate a little more good faith regarding my motives in editing and splitting, among other latent issues. - BilCat (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Dont like to see you guys having this sort of discussion you are both valuable to the project in your own ways and I would not want that to change. Hope you can come to some accommodation even if it is to ignore each other! MilborneOne (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't like it either! Gary is a good editor, and I'd hate to see him leave over a relatively minor personality conflict. But given our overlapping aviation interests and conflicting editing styles, it might be hard to avoid each other even partially. I'd like to just agree to disagree on the things we disagree about (really one main issue), and concentrate on what we do agree on, which is plenty. - BilCat (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for General Dynamics F-111C

Materialscientist (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Pratt & Whitney J48

The DYK project (nominate) 18:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Note

It took over 4 months, but this guy[1] is now blocked as an open proxy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ilyushin Il-14

Some time ago, almost three years, you added disputed tag to the Ilyushin Il-14. Do you recall why? It appears they added 300 hp per engine, which seems pretty significant. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

General negativity to UAVs?

Any idea why UAVs seem to receive more than their fair share of negativity from the media and some of the general public? This article was in the Huntsville Times today. Articles like this seem to make out like UAVs are attacking on their own like robots from Terminator films or something. -fnlayson (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

UAVs seem to be the new land mines. Reminds me of the old adgage "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." - BilCat (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010



To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

thumb|150px|upright|This one is on me...

...for your efforts. Certainly appreciated and welcome. ☺
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help out, even if a bit late :) - BilCat (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Please change the E-8C Page back to Northrop Grumman!

It should not be listed as a Boeing aircraft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcusledet (talk • contribs) 12:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.223.116.201 (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Problem child

Dash 7

Didn't mean to break the info box, power went out here in SE PA as I was messing with the caption.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries! - BilCat (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome home :) --Rlandmann (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

IAI Kfir

The use of Kfir bombers against civilian targets in Sri Lankan is well documented and as such should be included in the article. The bombers were used extensively to attack civilians in hospitals, schools and no-fire zones during the wars, particularly the last war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.32.21 (talk)

The problem is that you are adding this infromation without citing reliable sources which state this. I understand this is a contentious issue, and that is why Wikipedia requires both neutrality and reliable source. The Kfir page is not the place to reveal the "truth" - it's about an aircraft first. If the use of the Kfir is "well documented", then you should have no problem producing reliable sources which say that. Presenst those on the talk page, and build a consensus to support adding this information. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Aircraft of the United States Air Force

The article Aircraft of the United States Air Force has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Duplicate content at List of active United States military aircraft

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Although you created Aircraft of the United States Air Force as a breakout from Equipment of the United States Air Force the content is still in the original article. I have removed the table from the equipment article and re-directed it to List of active United States military aircraft. May not be the best solution but we seem to have three or more identical lists of almost the same format, open to other suggestions but only one table would be nice, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I think" I removed the list from the original article, and the aircraft from the equipment list, so they must have come back! I'm not going to contest the Prod. We seem to have people on WP whose sole purpose is to add complex tables with aircraft pictures to as many articles as the can. So be it then! - BilCat (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Fast work

I delete the article as a hoax, and it only takes you three minutes to start removing links to it! Great work Bill. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it looks like there are a lot of his edits to clean up! I'm headed to bed now, so I'll check on it later. Also, this guy's MO/style seems familiar, but I can't recall the username I'm thinking of, who was also from Mexico, from 2 or 3 years back. A checkuser might be useful. - BilCat (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I've just gone through all the military-related articles and cleaned up a few hoaxes. I haven't checked any of the airport and most of the airline ones though. He or she is active on the Spanish Wikipedia. I haven't seen a hoaxer get away with it for this long for ages. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll post a note at WPAIR, WPAVIATION, and WPAIRLINES so the editors on those subjects can take a look at his contributions. - BilCat (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement

Thanks for your recent participation on the naming of this article. Because the Canadian election campaign started on this past Saturday and the F-35 is front and centre as an issue I would appreciate it if you could keep a watch on the article, if for no other reason than I am expecting more than our fair share of vandalism and other "iffy" edits between now and election day on 2 May. It will probably be close to having a featured article for over a month! - Ahunt (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, will do. You might also mention it at WTAIR for additional eyes. - BilCat (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Good idea, will do. - Ahunt (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

GoSS

Moved the workpage to the location where it will go live on 9 July - should have left an explanation for that Dn9ahx (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. - BilCat (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Autoconformation RfC

A formal Request for Comment has now been started on this topic. Feel free to contribute; best, Ironholds (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Template & LTV 1602 update

Bill,

How are you? Just wanted to mention I borrowed your idea and added {{Userspace draft}} tag to my sandbox pages. And I updated your LTV Model 1602 page some. An F-16 book or two of mine list the F404 engine for the Model 1600 design, but the Strike from the Sea book lists the F401. The latter is more likely and makes more sense. So I listed that. Guess I should update the entry in F-16 variants. Take it easy. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw it on antoher userpage, and thought it was a great idea. As to the F404/F401, I agree that the F401 is more likely, as its closer to the thrust class of the F100 and F101. I knew I had a source for F401, but I couldn't remember where it was from. I've been looking for more sources on the F401, but they are few and far between. (Even the excellent recent book that I have by Jack Connors, Pratt & Whitney: A Technical History, only mentions the F401 in passing. Btw, how do you like Strike from the Sea? It's an interesting book, with some great illustrations of unbuilt aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It's live

See Wikipedia:Future Films Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikinews

Glad you saw from my WN talkpage I wasn't ignoring you. The only reason there's so little news on defence-related topics is the newswriters; as with WP, people tend to write about what they're interested in. Here it manifests as a bit of systemic bias, but in a smaller community like Wikinews it does leave major gaps in reporting. If it's something you're interested in, we'd love to have you come over and try your hand at some newswriting. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Crap; I meant to reply to you yesterday but totally forgot. Whoops.
Very well; though of course, you're still welcome to come to Wikinews and see what else you can help with! Unfortunately, what we really need is users who can demonstrate familiarity with our style guide and other standards - and the best way to both learn and demonstrate is of course to try writing. It may be that Wikipedia is better suited for your services, though we still value users who mainly contribute outside of mainspace.
Thanks for the tip; I'd be happy to try and convince the user to come accross to Wikinews and see how it grabs him. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

some edit might be ok, other edits are not

Hello bilcat, some of your edits to centrifugal compressor might be ok; however some of the edits are not so good. In fact some of what you corrected changed correct statements to wrong statements.

part of the problem here is that there is no general uniformity to the topic of turbomachinery. We have a squirrel cage fan article incorrectly titled as centrifugal fan, in fact a squirrel cage style is a special subclass, the author does not have a npov. We have a tesla geek writing about radial turbines, when he really is trying to promote tesla. we have radial inflow turbine graphics labeled centrifugal compressor. velocity vectors labeling an impeller backwards, we still have crazy discussions about centripetal and centrifugal forces. it doesn't take me an hour to hit 5 major errors. i try to use, plagiarize and cross reference anything i can within wiki.

please give me some advice, i can try to help or i can walk away.

if wiki wants college professors to accept wiki as a reference, it better dam well meet that level of expectation.

my centrifugal compressor article is the closest to college level wiki has throughout the turbomachinery (this includes turbines, compressors, gas turbines, jet engines, turbochargers, fans, blowers, rocket turbo pumps).

centrif comp is not done, 1 section left. i am not saying i wrote perfection, i am expert enough to know i wrote acceptable.

i have worked at ge aircraft engine, Pratt Whitney/carrier/Elliott, cooper turbo compressor, nrec, dresser rand, concepts eti. i have been hired to consult for mit, nasa, doe, air force, rocketdyne, vacuum cleaners, heart pumps (dick Cheney has one of the 2 i worked on), Toyota, Samsung. i have turbomachinery CFD on my personal computer now. i've designed in air nitrogen helium xenon oxygen refrigerants galore blood, water liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen liquid helium just to name a few. i've got my name on papers and in a book. i don’t have time to be both a wiki expert and turbos. Please help! best regards martin koronowski Mkoronowski (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

All I changed were some minor stylistic points, such as undoing some incorrect bolding (including one that bolded half a paragraph), undoing some link piping that incorrectly capitalized non-proper nouns, and moving two images to prevent vertical whitespace at some screen resolutions. If you have problems with those changes, I don't think I can help you. - BilCat (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Piping

Can you point me to the policy for this? Seems very strange to use [[Georgia (disambiguation)|Georgia]] when the target is just [[Georgia]]. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't find it at the moment, but the powers-that-be have decided that all links to DAB pages should go to the "foo (disambiguation)" page, even if it redirects back to "foo". Sounds silly, but they want the kinks to show up as DAB pages on the "what links here", etc. That link on the [[]] page is not actually [[Georgia (disambiguation)|Georgia]], but Georgia (disambiguation){{!}}Georgia, which diplayes "Georgia", but links to Georgia (disambiguation)/ I don't know for certian that that style is permited/recommended or not, but I've seen it being used, and it seemed better than displaying "Georgia (disambiguation)" in the link. - BilCat (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I looked at WP:DAB#Usage guidelines, which says not to pipe hatnote, so I've removed the piping to leave Georgia (disambiguation). - BilCat (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The Bot that added the piping provided a link to Wikipedia:INTDABLINK, with an explanation of its task at User:RussBot#About the hatnote task. I'm not sure why it is piping the link when WP:DAB says not to, but the bot opersators must think they know better than the guidelines. ;) - BilCat (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, let me know if you find something more concrete. Georgia (disambiguation) makes sense to me, since the appended "(disambiguation)" tells you that it's disambiguation page. What seemed pointless was Georgia, since there is no added information being displayed there. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
And just after writing this I found this which I followed with this. I can see the bot not wanting to change the appearance, but it seems a bit odd to not just show the "(disambiguation)" part. Thanks. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

USAF abbreviations

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Abbreviations_of_USAF_units - Would like your input Ng.j (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Nosey parker

Vewwy intewesting! Btw, I'm not back, I'm just not all the way gone. ;) - BilCat (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Update: He confessed to being Inetpup and was BLOCKED shortly thereafter by a Checkuser. Talk about handing the gun and the bullet for someone else to shoot himself with, eh? Oh, he'll be back and our nose will sniff him out again, as usual. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Is User:RovingPersonalityConstruct anothor of his socks? It fits with his previous pattern of choosing unrelated usernames for his socks, with Inetpuppy being hte odd abberation. You should probably watch out for Inetkitty or Younetpup- BilCat (talk) 11:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC), just in case!

Retirement??

You think we're going to let you out of here without an office party? Think again. ;) --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 23:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Your work and help will be missed! Mark Sublette (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. I've got some family issues that I am dealing with right now, but if that get better, and I expect it to in time, then I'll should be able to return full-time eventually. Until then, I'll just pop in now and then. PS, where exactly is that party??!! - BilCat (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Signbot is ferocious and scarey!--THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 14:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Half Barnstar
What say you give half a barstar for every half I send you? The latest craze is on a tab at the top of the page, go figure! Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BilCat. You have new messages at Dave1185's talk page.
Message added 18:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Someone just gave you two thumbs up~! Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Monsters University

With reference to this discussion which you participated in, I see that the page has been created again, despite little further development. Would appreciate your input on the talk page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Frank assessment needed

Well, you definitley have a COI, so I'd recommend you take it to WP:AIRLINES, and let the regulars there handle it, if they want to. It does seem to fail NOTNEWS at the moment, but if there are further repurcussions, then it might become notable. - BilCat (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

More wheel is better?

  • So, the LM F-35C has 4 wheels, as does F-4, F-14, E/F/A-18, E/A-6, A-7, AV-8A/B/B+/S (wait! they all have 5 wheels!), C-2, E-2, E/S-3, Dassault Rafale and SEPECAT Jaguar-M (too bad it didn't enter service!). Something is fundamentally wrong with HC's thinking, that's for sure. May be, just may be and only the Antonov An-225 can help him? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
LOL! Yeah, the An-225 sure des have a lot of spare tires! - BilCat (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow! Too bad those A-4s didn't have spare tires, huh? ;) - BilCat (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
And to think that Skyhawks still operate from a carrier today - those are sure amazing little birds. The second video in particular has some good shots of the deck crew hooking up the A-4s to the catapults with the bridles. And it has some "noise" at 9:29! Ouch! :) - BilCat (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The music was better in Top Gun, but the plot was worse. ;) - BilCat (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know, but it would probably depend on if ST Aerospace made any critical changes to the structure during the upgrades, weight distribution, etc, that wsould affect carrier suitability. It would also depend on if the upgrades added too much weight for a useful load, as I have no idea on the weight limitation on São Paulo's catapult and arresting gear. The aircraft still could be technically carrier-capable, but if you can't carry any payload, it isn't worth much, especially if you don't have enough fuel to get back to the boat or to dry land! The fact that the A-4KUs were able to operate from the SP probably means they were still pretty much stock A-4s. - BilCat (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

??

B, have you seen this? which is exactly the prediction you made, eons ago... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC).

No, so thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The parting shot] complete with expletives, mirrors precisely your prediction as to the probable fate as well as accurately reflecting Jimbo's sage advice. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC).
Your memory for what I said is better than mine! Anyway, he was given far more rope than most users of his ilk have ever had, and in the end he's hung himself with it. (Did I say something like that?) It is good to see that others can make such decisions without my "help"! Not much else to say, other than perhaps the old saw, "Good riddance to bad rubbish!" :) Also, which sage advice of Jimbo's are you referring to? - BilCat (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
In a run-in with "he who-shall-not-be-named" (with all deference to Harry Potter), your riposte to one of his jibes, was that he would probably meet a gory end, given his past combative and expletive-laced "style". When the eventual arbitration council was being formed, Jimbo was given a brief overview and indicated that at some time, individuals should be allowed to make a graceful exit, something that was ungraciously rejected. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC).
Ah! Thanks. Well, "graciousness" doesn't seem to be a character trait of MMN, at least in his online persona. That's sad, because it makes for quite a miserable person. It's when he makes other people miserable that it becomes a problem to the rest of us, and in essense is why he has finally been shown the door. - BilCat (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
...and as a corollary, I am glad to see you back, even if not full-bore...FWiW 20:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC).

Death Cruiser/Mega Death vandal is back

Sorry, but I really do have trouble reading your page because of the background. I have mentioned it to you before - I think. :) - BilCat (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hitachi Hatsukaze

I'm genuinely puzzled by your removal of the Hitachi template from the above article. I would be grateful if you could explain your reasons in case I'm missing something. Thanks.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not needed there, as we have an navbox for the company's engines. That's general practice on all aeroengine articles, including GE, P&W, and RR. - BilCat (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
The Hitachi template contains Hitachi products and is highly likely to be of use to some readers. I would query as to whether a separate template for Hitachi aircraft engines is actually needed at all, considering that the current template contains only a couple of live links and Hitachi no longer makes aircraft engines, so there is little potential for much growth.
GE, P&W, and Rolls Royce strike me as being very different, seeing as they have produced vastly more engine types, there are vastly more WP articles on their engines, and they actually do still produce aircraft engines. In their cases of course I see the logic in separate templates dedicated to just their engines. Frankly I don't in the case of Hitachi. I have no real problem with the Hitachi aircraft engines template existing however, but see no good reason why the main Hitachi template, which I do feel will be of use to some readers, should be removed. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Would adding a link to the main Hitachi template as a see also in the engine template address your concerns adequately? - BilCat (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for proposing a compromise. The question for me though is what is lost (and what is gained) by leaving the main Hitachi template on the page. I do understand the dangers of template bloat, but there are currently only three templates on that article, which doesn't strike me as excessive.
I expect - and apologies for being presumptuous - that the difference in views here might come down to a difference in perspective - whilst I tend to be see things more from a 'companies' angle, I guess that you might tend to see things more from an 'aviation' perspective. Neither perpspective is necessarily 'correct', although I can accept that readers interested in the Hitachi Hatsukaze are more likely to be aviation focused than Hitachi focused, although I do believe that some will be in the latter camp.
I can accept your proposal as a compromise, although I do feel that keeping both templates would in this case be the best outcome.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

COMAC

Please can i point you in the direct of the following. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Noted. - BilCat (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That user has a habit of following guidelines only when it suits him. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Walk away, I got this now. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 01:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
And me. --John (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks both, and I have walked away. :) - BilCat (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for your constructive criticism regarding the Lockheed L-1049 Super Constellation and Lockheed C-121 Constellation. I am very appreciative of you, and you gave me the inspiration to write the C-121 article. Thanks again! 707 (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Your very welcome. If you need suggestions for articles to work on, I've got a sandbox full of new article candidates, if any interest you. :) Just a suggestion, I'm not trying to saddle you with my projects. - BilCat (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I won't wikilove you but thanks all the same. Slàinte mhòr agad! Wee Curry Monster talk 19:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I know we haven't always gotten along well, but since Dave is our mutual wiki-friend, we both must have some good qualities! I definitely know the feeling of enbattlement, and having others follow one around post comments, definetely makes that feeling worse. I hope my comments have the right effect. If it just causes them go after you more, as signs of weakness often do, then you'll have cause for an ANI filing! - BilCat (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't bear grudges, I think we had a difference of opinion and we're both strong minded thats all. I only signed in today to do a brief edit on an article I've been working on in my userspace. I really don't understand what he hopes to achieve by siding with disruptive editors, it'll only encourage them. This will end in tears I'm sure. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing My Edit

Hello,

I am sure that you feel the crash of a helicopter with only 5 deaths is "non-notable". However, if you were the child of one of those killed in the accident and whose father was never recovered in the North Sea, then you might think it was more notable. Did you not see the hurt of that 10 year old child recently when his father - the pilot of a helicopter - was not mentioned during the news coverage? Any death of a member of our military is notable - whether in war time or doing standard maneuvers.

Arrainey (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Notablility on WP has a specific meaning. In addtion, WP:AIRCRASH has guideliens for what types of incidents are acceptable to be listed i aircraft articles. Of course the loss of a parent is important to a child, but WP is not a memorial site. I hope thoat helps you understand what is and what is not appropriate on WP. - BilCat (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Give me one ping only, Vassilly.

Hello, BilCat. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, I had the massive server lag too. Sigh. Perhaps its the PRC hacking the Wiki server farm in FL over Hcobb's and his IP "friends" denigrating their precious J-20! - BilCat (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for watching my page and while on the page of Jimbo, you took the words right out of my mouth. FWIW, these novice users failed to realize that we were once in their shoes, and when they reached our level, they will definitely change their mind and outlook of WP. No doubts about it. It's Sunday over on my side now, checking mails and then out I go to enjoy the lovely weekend sun. Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 03:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Enjoy your sun. - BilCat (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I've watched the movie too! Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 03:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

787 at AirVenture 2011

I do not know whether the 787's public display is noteworthy. However, here is a citation. The 787 was on display 29 July 2011, not 29 August 2011.
http://www.eaaapps.org/forumsearchresults.aspx?keyword=787
I've also seen this mentioned by the local Oshkosh, Wisconsin and Chicago, Illinois media. --Dan Dassow (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll check for those sources, and see what they say as fars as arting noteworthiness. I't possible it may also appear in AVWeek or FlightGlobal. - BilCat (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Hey, Bill, we count on aircraft enthusiasts such as you to keep the aircraft Wikipedia articles accurate. Dan Dassow (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

T-43A Flight Manual found

plz see Talk:Boeing T-43 thx, Lance....LanceBarber (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution FYI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1". Thank you. -- (I think Ken forgot to notify the other involved parties.) JohnInDC (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

F-35

It was a real image just when the uploader is stealing images from http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2010/100107ae_f35b_stovl-in-flight.html Lockheed Martin he/she doesnt actually now what it is which is why they credited the US Army for it! Good removal. MilborneOne (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for double checking it! I figured something wa sup, sinc ethe US Army is the only service not gettign the F-35. - BilCat (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Slovak Air Force

I noticed you deleted the paragraph here on the SVZ, but there was no indication why. The section should have a summary, so I’ve replaced it. Are you planning to rewrite it or something? Xyl 54 (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I had moved it to the new Czechoslovak Air Force article, which I created with material from this article and Czech Air Force. I should have left a sumamry of the page, but I guess I forgot to. - BilCat (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Boeing 720 photos

I have uploaded a few Boeing 720 pics onto Commons -- File:Olympic Airways Boeing 720 Fitzgerald.jpg -- File:MEA Boeing 720 Marmet-2.jpg -- File:MEA Boeing 720 Marmet-1.jpg - I like the last one. Anyway, hope these are of use. Russavia Let's dialogue 00:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Bot edits

I took the bots off my watchlist a few weeks ago because of the same thing. And I have over 9,000 on my watchlist! - BilCat (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Server problem today...

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Variable-geometry wing

Category:Variable-geometry wing, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 22:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Reliable? Unreliable?

I noticed an "unreliable?" tag in the IV-2200 article. Kimble is the president of the Aircraft Engine Historical Society, and I've yet to see anything too crazy from them. What would it take for these guys to be "reliable" in this context? BTW, the flag is appearing all the way over on the left in my Safari. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind providing a link to the article in questions? Searching for "IV-2200" doesn't turn up anything relevant. Then I can look and see what the issue is here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Sure, Chrysler IV-2220. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
It's just a person's name, nothing else. As such, it doesn't meet WP:V in any way. As to waht it would take to make the entry reliable, it would at least need some contact info for the Aircraft Engine Historical Society, perhaps the link to there web page. Further, I'd say we need some idea of where the info originally came from included. - BilCat (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

In this particular case, Kimble has a folio on the engine that was passed to him from Wright Patterson (IIRC). He sent me copies of that. I'll update the page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:V, the info need to be able to be verified by another person at will. This would mean enough info that a person could request the info from Wright Patterson or another facility themselves. - BilCat (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Contact fuse

Yes, I know it should be fuze but we have a skeleton theorist claiming that per WP:ENGVAR it should be fuse. Comment by someone with knowledge at Talk:Contact fuse to restore my faith in humanity would be welcome. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Saw your post

Get well soon! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, Thanks for making those reverts to my talk page. Jamiebijania is starting to get annoying. --JetBlast (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. He'll get blocked at the next such feat, per Milb's talk page. - BilCat (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
He's currently blocked. - BilCat (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
And socking. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm So I see. - BilCat (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Assuming his userpage is correct (which I don't!), he's only 15 - it might be easier to see if Dave can make a call to Raffles. ;) - BilCat (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Heh! (Also might be a good idea to keep an eye out for new Chelsea FC-related articles in case he socks again.) - The Bushranger One ping only 08:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm the wrong person to watch for new Chelsea FC-related articles - the only football I know about in played by the NFL! :) - BilCat (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Alenia C27

For what it is worth: you have my full support for your recent revert in "Alenia_C-27J_Spartan" - as you've had on several earlier occasions. Keep up the good work! Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the support. - BilCat (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Zealot in action

  1. Flayer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    1. Spike (missile) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hmmm, actually, Dave, in this case I think he has a point - I'm pretty sure national MoDs are considered reliable sources for their own equipment, when it comes to possession at least (vs. performance!). And since the Lativan MoD itself lists "Spike anti-tank guided missile system" among its equipment, well... [2] - The Bushranger One ping only 20:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • That I agree but I just wanted a secondary source to put a stop to other editor's query, supposedly if it happens. But the guy took it so personally and went on a ref tag stamping spree on other less controversial countries/entries, as well as whacking me with a trout on my user page when it should have landed on my discussion page instead. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 20:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Stranger in the night?

  1. 67.243.55.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    1. Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Who do you think? - BilCat (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Understood. - BilCat (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

MILHIST Military Aviation Questionaire

Hi BilCat! As your MILHIST Military Avation Task Force coordinator, I'd like to conduct a short questionaire to give me an idea of what you would the task force to achieve and the capabilities of yours that might contribute positively to the task force. The four questions of this questionaire are:

  1. What are your strengths on Wikipedia?
  2. Which four military aviation articles would you like to see be promoted to at least GA?
  3. What detailed resources (books, journals, etc) about military aviation do you have access to? Please provide the publications' authors, titles and ISSNs/ISBNs.
  4. Which three military aviation articles are you wiling to provide assistance? This can be expansion, copyediting, reference formatting, etc.

Please reply by copying and pasting the following at User talk:Sp33dyphil#MILHIST Military Aviation questionnaire and filling it out. 

; ~~~
#My strengths
#Articles I'd like to see the task force improve
#:
#:
#:
#:
#Sources which I have
#:
#:
#Articles I'm willing to provide assistance
#:

Thank you for your assistance. Regards --Sp33dyphil © • © 09:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous no more...

He still might actually be from Thailand or Vietnam originally/ethnically, not that it really matters beyond helping to understand an editor's POV/biases. - BilCat (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, gotcha now. - BilCat (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm So what's with 2 "new" users (User:Dave1195, User:Ard Ulsiin) harrassing each other? Very strange indeed! Might make for some interesting CU reports! ;) - BilCat (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

YGM!

Hello, BilCat. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Urgent input needed at WP:AIRPORTS

Hi BilCat! When you get a chance, can you make a few comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#CO.2FUA_SOC_2011-11-30. We are trying to decide on how to list UA and CO in airport articles since CO has ceased operations. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your views on an aviation article

Hi Bill, I'd appreciate your views on how to handle the recent Iranian capture of a US Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel UAV. The discussion of this is at Talk:Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel#Separate article for the Iranian incident? (any of the other editors who follow this talk page would, of course, also be very welcome to comment). Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Nick. At the moment, I'm going off-WP for an indeterminate amount of time, due to personal life issues. Hopefully some of my lurkers can help out there. - BilCat (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh...

Idiotic heavyhandedness by WP!!!

Looks like I retired just in time! This "blackout" idea is ill-thoughtout, kneejerk reactionary silliness. It's really strange that the site that refuses to crack down on IP-abuse, vandalism and other such problems in the name of "open editing" has no qualms about sticking it to its readers to make a political point, ie, "closed everything!". There are other ways to make such points without depriving readership of the use of the site. One of the major reasons I've retired are because WP puts the wishes of a few outspoken editors over its own "customers", the readers. Just becasue a site is "free" is no reason to ignore customer service. - BilCat (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That's what I should hae said!!! - BilCat (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, the WMF is now so full of itself over its "succes" yesterday, I wonder what they'll protest next? ATM charges? Cell-phone tariffs? PRC internet restrictions/abuses? Forgive me for being a cynic, but I think the first 2 are far more likely, as it's not wise to protest a government that already has the power to shut down your access to their citizens, as opposed to one that doesn't yet have that power! (Remember CNN and their suppression of the truth about Iraq's abuse of its citizens?) - BilCat (talk) 08:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia's credibility took a downturn thanks to that "blackout" garbage. Fittingly, there was a huge bust of an internet piracy service like the day after SOPA and PIPA were tabled. The message there is that SOPA and PIPA aren't needed to crack down on copyright violations. They can already do it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

World Series

I see some deletionist idiot clobbered that 1903 World Series photo. I guess he's worried that the photographer might arise from his grave and file a copyright suit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Something you started is now rated B

Good work. - BilCat (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes! A lot less stress this way! - BilCat (talk) 07:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Belated retirement present

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Bill, I'm genuinely embarrassed to admit that I didn't notice your retirement, though I'm pleased to see that you're occasionally checking in. In lieu of a gold watch, I'd like to offer you this barnstar as a small token of recognition of your enormous contribution to Wikipedia over the years. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Nick, that is much appreciated. - BilCat (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Reverts

Hi Bill: Thanks for the reverts on my user page. I have to admit that is the oddest user page vandalism I have ever seen! If they want credit for vandalizing the page they will have to do more than that! - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The things people will do to get attention! Btw, I just reverted this edit to the Royal Canadian Air Force. To my knowledge, the CF still exists, does it not? - BilCat (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
The RCN, RCAF, and whatever they call the army have been 're-established' as seperate services now. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know, all that was done in Aug 2011 was to rename the CF "operational environemnts" to their historical names, but the Canadian Forces still exists. - BilCat (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
The Canadian army is called the Canadian Army, oddly enough! - BilCat (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Yep the Canadian Forces still exists, but it consists of the RCAF, RCN and Canadian Army. - Ahunt (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The name change/reversals to earlier names seemed to be predicated on a deliberate effort of the government to placate the party faithful who were constantly banging the drum. Defence Minister Peter MacKay said the decision corrects a "historical mistake" (let me venture a wild guess here- perhaps the other party in power made that "historical mistake"??) that was made when the various branches of the military were renamed around 1970, with the word "royal" removed. "After all, it was under these names that the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and Royal Canadian Air Force brought Canadians great honour," MacKay said. The two forces that have "royal" restored had this appellation from inception while the army, which has several "royal" units but has never been designated the Royal Canadian Army, will return to its historic name, the Canadian Army.

FWiW, The changes were supposed to be only "paper" changes and surprisingly, a lot of folks including the Royal Canadian Legion opposed the move, as it was essentially only a p.r. exercise and may end up costing millions in just the nonsense of new signs, logos, and the like, while veterans' programs are simultaneously being slashed. Bzuk (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC).

And indeed it has cost millions to implement, while, as you note, slashing vets programs and even CF equipment purchases. - Ahunt (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Note to BushRanger

It's quite ironic to see people complain when one supposedly doesn't show good faith, then when you do assume good faith on their part, they take pride in telling you that you were wrong to have done so! :) - BilCat (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Remember the whatever-the-nee "garbage truck"? Similar style of behavioural issues, wasting the community's time and patience but yet allowed to free roam because they have refine WP:CPUSH into a delicate art form. That, I have to hand it to them and their enablers. Just hope that they are happy that I've forgiven them, amen! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 12:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I know what you did...

Kindle Fire, actually - I can't afford an iPad! (I'm not into the Applesphere anyway.) The K-Fire has a 7-inch screen, which makes it easy to accidentally hit the wrong link. - BilCat (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I suppose that explains this as well? It had me wondering whether your account had been hacked ;) I hope that all's well with you Bill, and it's nice to see you dropping in occasionally. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Yup! :) And thanks. - BilCat (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Nick, looks like you kicked up a hornet's nest somewhere. :) - BilCat (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Now I've seen it all...

Guess the Five Pillars can be done away with, they're not policy! - The Bushranger One ping only 19:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Heads up on Grumman fighter articles

A newcomer has added some very curious submissions that have altered the following: Grumman F4F Wildcat, Grumman F6F Hellcat and Grumman F8F Bearcat articles. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC).

Yeah, I've noticed that too. He does seem to be citing sources, but sometimes what he comes up with is a bit skewed and over-technical. Definitely bears watching. - BilCat (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Some of the statements, however, are just plain goofy, regardless of the cites; for example, calling the Hellcat, a "Wilder Wildcat", saying the Bearcat was a derivative of the Hellcat and claiming that the Wildcat's pilots' combat experiences were the origin of the Hellcat development, when the Hellcat was in development prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. FWiW, Bzuk (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC).
Definitely skewed. Facepalm Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Trouble brewing

See contributions from a newcomer with a political bent. FWiW, the user name is also controversial. Bzuk (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC).

Nomination of USS Enterprise (CVN-80) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article USS Enterprise (CVN-80) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Enterprise (CVN-80) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Safiel (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

My user page

Thanks for reverting that odd addition to my user page. The strange thing is that I have never crossed paths with that user before, so no clue what that was about. Besides on AfDs I think I vote delete more often than keep. - Ahunt (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) CHRISTMAS and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I must ask ...

Why has vehicles from Taiwan been update to use TW-ROC instead ROC-TW? I have been out for quite some time and I wish to know the reason for this.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the AH-64 page? It's because the ROC article is now at Taiwan! There is a discussion at Talk:Boeing AH-64 Apache#Operator - Taiwan vs ROC about the change. - BilCat (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

So John Smith succeed in pushing for his own agenda how sad. Oh well too bad, but regardless thank you for answering my question.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

My talk page

Thanks! And happy 2013! - Ahunt (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Concorde

Perhaps you can explain why you reverted my edit and why you have misused the minor edit facility in doing so?

Save Concorde and Olympus 593 are not presently doing any engineering work. The use of the present tense is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkbeast (talk • contribs) 14:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I use a Kindle Fire HD tablet for reading my watchlist and for light editing. Sometimes the watchlist page is slow to load completely, and my fingers inadvertently hit the wrong link, in this case the rollback for your edit on the Concorde article. But as far as I can tell from the edit history screen, my edit was not marked as "minor".
While I would agree the sentence needs some reworking to show the timeframe involved, your changes went beyond what was in the source, given that it's from 2010. I'll see what I do to clear up the confusion from my laptop computer later, if another editor doesn't address the issue in the meantime. - BilCat (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
It is clearly marked as a minor edit.
I would say that the previous text goes beyond the source; a reader would conclude they are still working on the aircraft. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, it is showing as a minor edit now. That seems to be a function of the automatic rollback, not a selection I made, unless the "m" refers to something else.
As to the edit it self, your change is more problematic than than what was restored, so I'm not going to restore your changes. You are free to do so , however. As I said, I will adress the issue later from my laptop. - BilCat (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I've looked at the text, and I think it is fine as written. The key phrases are "In February 2010, it was announced that the museum and a group of volunteer Air France technicians intend..." and "In May 2010, it was reported that the British Save Concorde Group and French Olympus 593 groups had begun inspecting the engines of a Concorde at the French museum; their intent is to restore...." Both statements are dated, and the tenses are correct within the context of being "announced" and "reported". Whether the activities are continuing now is something we don't know from the sources from 2010, and we can't guess or assume that these activities are or are not continuing to this day. We would need new, current sources to make such claims. - BilCat (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is worded that way so the text says only what the sources cover. I adjusted some of the text to do that. Thanks for checking. -23:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence

Hello, BilCat. As the reverter of this IP's work (back in 2011), you may be interested in this. CsDix (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

EJ200

Assuming that you are now un-semi-retired, could you look at this edit of yours:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurojet_EJ200&diff=441458476&oldid=441448982

What is it that needs citing here? There are two pictures in the article that clearly show the absence of IGVs, variable or otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.14.12 (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Photos are not sources. - BilCat (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I thought that might be the problem. 86.183.14.12 (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Boeing AH-64 Apache

Bill can you semi-protect the Apache article for a while till we get passed this Korean deal? FOX 52 (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Bill unfortunately isn't an admin. I've just semi-protected the article for a week as it's clear that this has been a big problem over the last few weeks. From memory, there's also a long history of the details of South Korean defence orders differing significantly from the initial news reports so it's clearly sensible to wait until things are confirmed. Nick-D (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Nick! It helps to have talk page lurkers! :) - BilCat (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

My apologies Bill, thanks Nick-D (talk) - FOX 52 (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries, Fox. ;) - BilCat (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
There are times when I'm lousy with words, so I'll just keep it short/simple. Thanks! Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 03:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Airplane (disambiguation) and Aeroplane (disambiguation)

Hi, BilCat! I am a big fan of your editing, and I kinda feel like a celebrity having you revert a merge I made, lol. I had a question about the merge of these two disambig pages. I didn't discuss the merge prior to doing it because I didn't think it was necessary to discuss--could you explain please why you think the two disambiguation pages should not be merged? (I guess my thought was that it's pretty similar to say, Grey (disambiguation), which has been merged with Gray (disambiguation).) Red Slash 00:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I think! Your merge is allowed under WP:DPAGES#Combining terms on disambiguation pages, but I felt they should remain separate due to the contention nature of the "airplane"-"aeroplane" debate. I note that the Gray/Gray DAB pages were separate for much the same reason, and they were also merged without discussion, or objection. Anyway, you're welcome to propose the merge, and it might well pass, and I'm fine with abiding by the consesnus, whatever way it goes.
I've noticed from your talk page that you've had others disagree with some recent moves/merges that you've made. It might be good to seek someone elses opinion before making such moves, even if they seem obvious to you. if they disagree with you, or advise caution, then you can still propose a move/merge. I've made moves/merges on many occasions that seemd obvious to me, but proved to be contentious in one way or another, so I'm not trying to jump your case here, just advising a little caution if it's needed. I know sometimes it's easier to just take action, rather than wait for a consesnus that may never come. - BilCat (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of consensuses that may never come, see Talk:NCAA Division I FBS playoffs#Requested move for something that ought to be obvious, but is hung up on guidelines and policies that prevent the actual name from being used, even though the title is clearly avalible for use. - BilCat (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

V-22 Osprey in future IDF service. Edits and thoughts

Hi. I made a couple changes to the Osprey article, which you reverted. I have no issue with that, but I believe the info I attempted to add to the info box was basically relevant. I assume your primary concern was that such changes were premature in the context of the recentness of the announcement. I also made some section title changes which I agree were problematic. At what point would you agree to the expansion in the infobox in terms of timeframe? Cheers! Irondome (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The main problem with the infobox addition is that it uses fixed field titles. The field that you added, "future users", doesnt exist in the master template for the infobox, so it didn'teven show up in the main page. The general practice on aircraft articles is to list new users once the contracts have been signed, and/or the order is unlikely to be cancelled. To my knowledge, no contracts with Bell-Boeing have been signed yet. Some countries such as India take years to ever sign the full contracts, and even then the order may be cancelled for other reasons, such as corruption in one form or another. BilCat (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I was unfamiliar with the templates. so it was a clumsy edit, I apologise if I screwed anything up. still need to learn much in terms of WP tools. I would agree with that view of the timeframe. Israeli-US deals tend to be relatively timely in their agreement, so I am guesstimating late summer/autumn for official sign ups inter - company and the actual numbers ordered. I suspect they have been cooperating on this for some time. Cheers Irondome (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but I not able to help due to family issues. - BilCat (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Dominican Spanish

Yes, I even sent a report to the "Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism" but they didn’t do anything against his/hers IPs — (70.148.147.138 (talk · contribs) and 50.154.236.130 (talk · contribs) —. ★ Nacho ★ Mailbox ★ 22:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

With apologies

I see now that I was unreasonable, I concedeSocratesrazo (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)socratesrazo

Apology accepted. - BilCat (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Why you reverted my question???

Why you reverted my question from the talk page of Americans, without even telling the reason. I think that it was a normal proposal.--Ransewiki (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Tablet error, per this revert of myself one minute later. Did you not see that? - BilCat (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, sorry --Ransewiki (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I note you reverted my edit to Continental Motors - You are correct and I thank you. I had intended this Applications list to apply to the Ranger inline engine.--Nuance 4

Unexplained reversion

Can you please explain this reversion? What's wrong with these edits?--Jetstreamer Talk 01:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, see the previous discussion. They really do need a confirmation option for rollbacks. - BilCat (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
It also happens to me from time to time. Never mind.--Jetstreamer Talk 01:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Another case

You might be interested

in the discussion WP:RSN#Is this fact tag justified in the introductory sentence defining the article? as it relates to some edits at Americas you made on the 16th. I'm wishing now that I'd commented on the editor's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Whatever is decided there is fine with me. - BilCat (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Wasn't really suggesting you get involved with the issue itself. Maybe I'm imagining a pattern. Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bill

Thanks for the fix to the variant section, so much for my cut and paste FOX 52 (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I thought something like that must have happened. - BilCat (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

USS America

Having an explanatory note in the intro, explaining what PCU stands for and why it doesn't say USS America in the intro even though it does so everywhere else in the article, would help... Thomas.W talk to me 14:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Next-Generation Bomber

Hi BilCat, I'm surprised that you reverted my small change to the Next-Generation Bomber article. What's wrong with the interwiki that I added? My intention was to link directly to the "Pratt & Whitney PW9000" (a link that exists in Wikipedia), avoiding interested readers a search. Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Because it redirects to the PW1000G article, and I could find nothing about the PW9000 there, which would just confuse the readers your trying to help. In my opinion, the redirect should proably be deleted to leave it as a redlink, but that is a more involved process. I should have left an edit summary, but I hit save prematurely. Sorry. -BilCat (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BilCat/archive_16&oldid=1144590495"