User talk:BilCat/archive 14

Question about the correct designations for older Lockheed aircraft.

The titles of the three articles Lockheed L-10 Electra, Lockheed L-12 Electra Junior, and Lockheed L-14 Super Electra all use the form L-n for the designation, with the Model n form (e.g. Lockheed Model 10 Electra) as a redirect. You made these changes about two and a half years ago.

However, while reading various contemporary documents concerning these aircraft, such as type certificate data sheets, accident reports, and old articles in Flight, I have always seen them designated as either Model n, Type-name n, or sometimes just Lockheed n (e.g. Model 12A, Electra Junior 12A, or Lockheed 12A). I have never seen the L-n form in such documents; it seems to be a newer practice, done for consistency with later Lockheeds like the L-188 Electra. (For example, the L-n form doesn't show up in Flight until 1958.) Lockheed's own website uses the Model n form when discussing these older planes.

What was your basis for choosing L-n as the correct form? Would you consider the possibility of changing it to Model n?

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's the consensus of WP:AIR to use the L- format. I'll try to find the discussion, and send you a link to it. - BilCat (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'd appreciate it. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I did a little digging myself, and found this. Was that the discussion you had in mind? --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I know you've been busy lately; did you miss my last question above? --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've decided to bring the issue up on WT:AIR for wider discussion. Hope you don't mind. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry! I completely forgot, and then your follow-ups got lost in a storm of comments the past few days. You should get at good answer at WT:AIR. I didn't ignore you on purpose. - BilCat (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem! You seemed to have a lot on your plate already. :) --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Question about your edits of DHC-2 entry

"Removed non-notable additions added by Keepitreal74 - uh, exactly" - I'm not sure what you mean by "uh, exactly" and why would you remove the reference to the latest accident up north? thank you for all your contributions and I hope you feel better soon. Keepitreal74 (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what I meant either - it looks like a reference to something that you might have said, but I can't find it. I might have got mixed up with another revert I made at the time. Anyway, per the WP:AIRCRASH guidelines, the accident is not notable. Small aircraft crashes are numerous, and listing all of them would be counter-productive in an encyclopedia. Also, being "latest accident" is not a qualifier, no matter where it happened. - BilCat (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand completely, thanks.Keepitreal74 (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Langley Flying School

An article that you have been involved in editing, Langley Flying School, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Langley Flying School. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ahunt (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Canberra class Landing Helicopter Dock

Your rollback to Canberra class Landing Helicopter Dock returns an un-cited and apparently incorrect aviation information which had been been updated from the Spanish BPE Spanish ship Juan Carlos I (L61) page. I support your anti-vandalism work but if you see the Canberra talk page I had a request for help in clarification of that edit, I would like to return my edit and let those closer to the page clean up the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.246.212 (talk)

My revert was not a "rollback" for vandalism. Take this to the article's talk page. - BilCat (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce R

I've just put some thoughts down in the discussion page on "High Speed Alloys". Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Air Defence Command?

Thanks for your warning there to the other editor, it was much appreciated! - Ahunt (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm not actually sure he knew the answer or not, but either way, that was too much! I just hope he listens. - BilCat (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope so to - writing good articles is hard enough work, without sarcasm and other hostile silliness thrown in! - Ahunt (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I use a lot of sarcasm myself, but calling you answer "condecension" is too much even for me. You gave a straight-forward answer in good faith, and that shouldn't be attacked. As I do sometimes remind people (sarcasticlly), mind-reading doesn't work over the internet! - BilCat (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Doolittle

I removed "saving a previously injured ankle from breaking" from Jimmy Doolittle because there is no reference citation on the page to support the statement and, while the statement may be correct that his ankle was not broken in the crash, it does not say in the text how he did it. Plus, how do you verify a statement like that? A contributor could have written that Doolittle 'saved a previously unbroken arm from breaking'. Indeed, you could say Doolittle saved every bone from breaking except for those that were broken in the crash - a true but meaningless statement. That was my thinking behind removing the text. I hope this makes my intent clear. I was not trying to vandalize the site, just improve it.

You need to try to use edit summaries when you edit, so people will know what you are doing. You had made some odd changes to the dates, and that is why I had reverted you. I'll try to add your changes about the leg back in later. - BilCat (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Bill, I've just blocked you for 3 hours for breaching the 3RR in the Viceroy article. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock}} below. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention to the block amounts, but I was over 3RR. Anyway, I've moved on. This dude want to own the article, so let him. Frankly, I can't understand his refusal to add inline citations - that's not optional when requested. there was a 9-month old {{refimprove}} on the articel, so that's not a new issue there either. It's very strange to me. - BilCat (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been three hours, and it won't let me edit. Was the block changed back to 12 hours? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bill, your account is showing as being unblocked (I just tried to manually unblock you, but it said this wasn't possible as you weren't blocked). Could you please try editing again? Nick-D (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Still not able to edit. It states it's an autoblock for BilCat. - BilCat (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll post on WP:AN now, and see if anyone there can fix this up. Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The post is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Block not expiring when it should - urgent. Nick-D (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This should now have been fixed by User:Spartaz. Nick-D (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's working now, thanks again. I guess God wanted me to have a 4-hour block! - BilCat (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

...or this admin didn't know how to shorten blocks properly. Sorry for the mix-up. Nick-D (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) If God can use Balaam's donkey, He can use anyone! :) Btw, you might ought to have someone check the other guy's block also, just in case that same admin messed up his block too. ;)

Yes, I messed that one up as well, but have manually unblocked them now :0 Nick-D (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Your removal of "uncited addition" from Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_carrier#Design

The addition was cited, in that it included a sole and obvious Wiki link to another ship class for which the references to class characteristics are not at all in doubt. If you wish to translate the source detail over, you may; I'd like to avoid having a footnote for every sentence when a link to something of verifiable detail is already included. I am undoing your removal because I feel it is clear that the provided information is both evidently plain in the manner it is displayed, and it is useful to the reader in terms of measuring the scope of naval spending between nations. —166.137.132.54 (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The aircraft complement is not the same, as the Wasps can carry as many Harriers as the Invincibles, plus additional helicopters. Also, you aren't just referencing figures, but making an analysis based on the sourced figures, which is called synthesis. In addition, the article is about the QEs, not the Invincibles, so the whole comment is out of place there. Obviously I couldn't fit all that in the edit summary. Rather than reverting something without completely understanding the reasons for it, it's better to ask first. I won't remove it again right now, but if you don't contiue to discuss this in good faith, I will revert it again later. - BilCat (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, a cited entry requires a secondary source; other Wikipedia articles are not reliable. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree, you cannot insert information then instruct others to vote on it. Here we... suggest > form consensus > then include. This is a matter of convention. G. R. Allison (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Revert

Hiya BilCat, I wanted to ask you about http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Boeing_Vertol_VZ-2&diff=336847724&oldid=336846081 revert, which I just happened to notice. I don't understand why you reverted my edit. All I did was clean up the wikitext, probably after some noob made a mess out it all. It's pretty strange to have a purely maintenance related edit reverted, so I wanted to ask, what's up?
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 21:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What was removed was several hidden notes, along with the {{aircontent}} template in the See also section. These are normal notations and templates used in aircraft articles. They arn't nwebie mistakes or superfluous notations. There were extra spaces in several places, which I did leave out of my revert, as these should have been removed. If you've used AWB or a similar aid that marked these as unneeded, please let me know which one, so I can try to get these "allowed". Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

*blink* ...those were there on purpose? I did't use any tools to make that edit, I just cleaned up what was presented to me when I went to copy a bit of content. Why in the world would you add all of that garbage on purpose? Among other things, there are guidelines discouraging the use hidden comments.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 21:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

But they aren't banned by policy. The top header is a project notice, and the headers between the main text and the Specs are there for for future use in expanding the article. The last one, in the See also secion, isn't a hidden note, but a template with a few hidden notes in it. Hope that helps. - BilCat (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to really argue about it. Project notices go on talk pages, empty sections shouldn't exist, and spaghetti code for wikitext should always be avoided as a general principle. If you want to follow me around and revert any edits I make to similar articles then feel free, but you should know that this sort of non-standard editing will probably be resisted by many people.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 22:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you disagree with a project's standard practices, you should take it up with the project. Continuing to remove standard elements such as the top hiden notice and the see also template will result in appropriate actions being taken. Btw, I'm not following you - those pages were already on my watchlist. - BilCat (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what? What project are you referring to? Also, are you threatening me with something? (and ps.: I wasn't accusing you of following me, above).
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 23:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't threatening you anymore than you were accusing me of following you. And I thought I had listed the project, sorry. It's WP:AIR, and the guidelines are at WP:AIR/PC. (Coincedently, that's in the hidden note you keep removing from the tops of pages.) If you disagree with the guidelines, you ought to discuss it at the project's talk page, WT:AIR. - BilCat (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 23:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Humm... sorry, but I'm looking over that guideline and I'm not seeing where it says, or even suggests, adding all of the notes and stuff that we're talking about here. I do see {{aircontent}} mentioned, which is a separate issue (and the layout/style issues I see with that template is something that I might address separately), but not the rest. Aside from the clutter problem (which is probably the most significant issue), are you aware of just how amateurish it looks to be adding all of that to the article? I'm sure that you have good intentions in adding all of those notes and things, and looking over your contrib history I see some good content contributions and quite a bit of maintenance work, so I'm not trying to put you down or anything. I'm simply saying, the reason that I started this conversation was because I thought it was strange that you would revert what I honestly thought was a mess created by a noobie.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 23:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) I've removed the hidden section headings from the VZ-2 article, as they are unneded if they aren't going to be used soon after articel creation. The top header is used on virtually all aircraft pages, and that should be discussed if you think it should go. As to the Aircontent template, I wasn't sure if you referring to that or not, so I answerd as if you were, just in case. - BilCat (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think that the aircontent template was widely used, but since this discussion started I've actually looked and seen that it's used quite a bit. Like I said above, I have issues with the layout and style that template is presenting. That can be addressed on the talk page of the template itself though (once I feel like dealing with the fight that such a discussion will invariably create *rolls eyes*), so it's not really an issue here.

I'll take your word on the fact that the wikitext comment about the project has been added to many articles. I might be missing it, (and if I am, please point it out) but I don't see any mention of adding that comment anywhere on WP:AIR/PC. Besides that, just because something is currently widespread doesn't automatically make it good or correct (eg.: WP:OTHERSTUFF). I guess that I can see the desire to add such a comment, but it's not at all necessary (and again, I really do think that it just looks bad). What's worse is that, since it's a source wikitext comment, the wikilink formatting is completely ineffective anyway, so half of the purpose for having such a comment is immediately irrelevant anyway.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Glider

Could you explain your objection to the move? --Cybercobra (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you bothered to read the talk page, or Glider's history? You should be doing that before trying to make page moves and using a CSD header that claims the move is uncontested or consenual. - BilCat (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That discussion seems to be from 10mos ago. Surely whatever moves & hatnotes that were to be added/executed have occurred by now? It never makes sense to have Foo redirect to Foo (bar).

--Cybercobra (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

But it was upheld in August here, so it should still be discussed first. In such cases, you do need to make a proposal first. Anyway, Glider (disambiguation) is probably the better choice for Glider, as there really is no clear primary topic - that makes your proposal contested. - BilCat (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you personally have an objection or is your objection just about the lack of discussion. (i.e. Were there to be a !vote, would you vote Oppose?) --Cybercobra (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Read Talk:Glider (sailplane)/Archive 2. This wasn't a simple maintenance move, but the result af an extermly lengthy discusion which lead to the consensus to have the page where it is now. You can't "be bold" and undo a previous consensus simply because it's old. - BilCat (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Argentine Skyhawks

Hi, I was wondering what you think would happen if I create their own article. I would like to join text from A-4 Skyhawk, List of A-4 Skyhawk operators, Falklands articles, serials, BuNos, etc plus the drawings at pt:McDonnell Douglas A-4 Skyhawk. --Jor70 (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's probably best to set up a test articel on your userspace, so the other editors can see what it looks like. (I can help you wuth that if you need it.) You probably need to combine it with the A-4AR article also, as I don't think we need two on Argentine variants when we only have one for the other (except for 1 for Singapore). - BilCat (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. I will give it a though. thks --Jor70 (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Top Gun - fotc refs

what about having a whole episode dedicated to top gun and having it named 'wingmen'? and then some in other episodes. it's undeniably on the articles about the episodes themselves, and where's the reference in that? 119.12.219.33 (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

More glider

Given that the discussion got refactored a bit since you commented, you may wish to clarify your vote on Talk:Glider. --Cybercobra (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Garrett engines

Hi Bill. Here's a link to a page of Garrett history with some discussion of development of various engines in the mid-1970s. You may find something worth drawing into WP. There's a .pdf at this location: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1975/1975%20-%200026.html ~~Mack2~~ 00:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

A newly updated and very informative archive devoted to the ATF3, with many internal links to further documents, e.g., by John Evans who was one of the engineers: http://web.me.com/jcefamily/ATF3/ATF3_Online_Museum.html I exchanged some email with Evans a couple of years ago (using my real name), and I he had an interesting story to tell about how/when he was hired (and about my dad). This museum is the product of an enormous amount of labor and I'm sure some of it belongs in WP. It has a lot of engineering spex, info about airframes, and so on, that you might be able to use to enhance the ATF article.

Also here re ATF3: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/all/search/503DECB3FABC5541CA2571F800269D56 ~~Mack2~~ 00:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll take a look. - BilCat (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it would help to have a disambiguation page for ATF3 -- the protein vs. the jet engine. I don't know how to set that up.~~Mack2~~ 22:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as there are just two articles with the name, a hatnote at ATF3 should be sufficient. I'll add one. - BilCat (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits to Glider (disambiguation)

Thanks for your edits to this page. Unfortunately I'm not sure they were constructive. Please see my comments at Talk:Glider (disambiguation)#Recent edits to this page where I have opened a discussion on the tipic. Thanks --MegaSloth (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't think your edits were constructive either! - BilCat (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for help

Thank you for your help cleaning out my talk page - there's a little Troll alert there. He/she/it also acted at the Airbus A340 and [[Boeing 777] articles using a different name, also as IP (was changing specs or removing content). --Denniss (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! - BilCat (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit summries

I used "SVG" in the edit summary all three times that I updated the roundels from JPEG to SVG (in fact four times). If you're a little more dexterous than Gerald Ford, then you should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. AnonMoos (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm quite clumsy due to a physcial condition, so I find your comments offensive. The first edits seeme dto add an old roundel, and the others were stomped in the middle of reverting the removal of cited info. My apologies, but to me, reverting vandalism matters more than SVG files. Some help reverting the vandals would have been appreciated. - BilCat (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Amazing!

How did you find it? I blitzed it just now. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I Wiki-searched "aircraft enging" "popular culture". - BilCat (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well done, amazing that it was the only one. It occurs to me that if an aircraft appearance is that notable it will be linked from the movie/game article. I am all for getting rid of the pop culture rubbish. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Lurking on in - I just want to see how Aircraft in fiction ends up. It we keep it then I say move all the popcult stuff there, as most of it is now. If it gets deleted then we need to have a formal debate, but I am with you on this, I would support a zero tolerance policy on it - none at all. Keep the game, toy etc stuff on the pages about the games, toys etc - I think a good argument can be made that a Transformer toy that turns into an F-15 is not notable to the F-15, only to the toy and that is where the mention should be. As Nimbus noted - Janes doesn't have to deal with this stuff... - Ahunt (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed with the two of you... and that article might well end up in a dead end, judging by how it's going right now. As for Jane, everyone including the Russians would cease buying their publications should they ever include such popcult/trivia, correct me if I'm wrong. --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 03:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I completely support the Zero Tolerance porposal, we might have trouble getting a consensus to ban it. I hae an alternate proposal that might be better accepted, and is based on the lessons learned from this latest attempt to have a single article for "Notable appearances in Media" (NAM). The idea is to have a single central page on WP:AIR project-space for all discussions on pop-culture in aircraft articles, and where a consensus must be gained for any pop-culture item to be added, by anyone, to an aircraft-related article. The main NAM page would list the quidelines, and there would be a another page for discussing and approving the appearances in articles. Naving a central discussion page should help to aliviate arguments such as "The F-22 page has the transformers, so why can't the F-15 page?". (That went on for several weeks!) We would probably need a series of warning templates to warn users who add items without clearing them through the "Central Committiee on NAM" first, with warings that they'll be blocked if this continues. Also, with the warnings, we might be able to pursue getting a 3RR exemption for the removal of undiscussed pop-culture items. - BilCat (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Crime

I just added the least-biased sentence from that article and moved it the Jamaica page. Blackjays1 (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft accidents

Hey just wondering where the line's drawn for notability of air accidents and why some are removed. The incident I added on the PA-31 in Queensland is quite notable here in Australia, it is well-known amongst plane-heads here as one of the greatest mysteries in twin-engine aircraft crashes. Anyway I'm new here, I was just wondering if it's number-of-fatalities that deems it notable.

The numbere of fatalities is part of it, but there is more to it. Take a look at WP:AIRCRASH, which gives the guidelines for accident and incident inclusion in aircraft articles. As the first line states, "Most accidents and incidents are not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia." Read over the guidelines, and then if you have any questions, or if you feel this accident qualifies for inclusion, discuss this at Talk:Piper PA-31 Navajo. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Revert and then ignore?

I see that someone is being a DICK again... should we just revert and then ignore him? Personally, I find him a pain in the behind. --Dave ^{♪♫1185♪♫} 19:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC) (NB: You do know "who" I'm talking about... right?)

Yeah, what a shame! - BilCat (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Damn... you beat me to it~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 05:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahhhh, Jeff beats me to reverts all te time. Anyway, even without the IP's stated reason (assuming in good faith that there was one!), I can't see any reason to remove the opponent - it's history - supposedly, as it's a painting.  ;) - BilCat (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, my sentiments exactly... you can't bloody well be fighting against the air, right? I mean, it's a battle and who was the other party? Leaving a blank there serves no purpose, at all. Once again, this shows how stupid IPs can be... *face palm* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 06:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• More monkey business happened at Airbus A340 & Talk:Airbus A340 today... and guess what? The shamee got BLOCKED for the second consecutive time for twice breaching 3RR... really a shame~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 16:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the dude's problem is, but his time on WP is going to be very short if he keeps this up. Some of his latest comments are an admission he doesn't intend to follow policies. - BilCat (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah... with such kind of confession, I would have indef-ed him right from the start instead of waiting until now. IMO, we have extended too much good faith to the shamee and he should have been REVERT, BLOCK & IGNORED a long time ago. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 17:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

5th BLOCK

Once again, he's been blocked for the fifth time, the duration of block this time is 3 months long w.e.f. today - 29 April 2010. After which, I'm moving him to my ban on sight/revert on sight list if he ever vandalize the Airbus A340 article again. Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 16:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Disaster Management, etc.

Thanks for your reply, I'll check there as I have the time to. Are there any admins you could recommend talking to about naming conventions such as those I mentioned to Akradecki on his talk page? Thanks! Der.Gray (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You might try User talk:MilborneOne. He's generally very helpful, and if he can't help directly, he may be able to point you to someone who can. He is active at the Aviation Accident task force, so he has some familiarity with the topic as relates to aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Photo Deletions

Apologies, my bad. Connormah (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Navbox flags

Please take a look at Template talk:US Air Force navbox#Remove the flags‎. There is a compromise with Gnevin that I would like your input on before I execute. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

de Havilland Sea Venom

Hello BilCat! On 11 and 12 February 2009 you did a lot of good work on de Havilland Sea Venom including adding an image of the instrument panel of a Swiss Venom. You then edited the caption of this image to read Royal Navy Sea Venom aircraft being handed over to the Royal Australian Navy circa 1955. However, despite the caption, the image remains of the instrument panel of a single-seat Venom.

You are possibly able to locate the correct image of a Sea Venom being handed over to the RAN. If so, it would raise the quality of the article. Best regards. Dolphin51 (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Good catch - It looks like I neglected to update the filename when I added the caption. I found the image on Commons, so I am adding it now. Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your input requested on the Lockheed naming question...

I know you've commented on this before, and I'm sorry to bother you again, but could you do me the favor of adding your two cents to Template talk:Lockheed? Nimbus suggested that I ask for your input, and you seemed to care more about this question than most. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

RAF

Can you explain the reason why the statement about the Finnish Air Force is required. The statement that the RAF was first is alreay cited. Nobody else is claiming that they were not. If ii is needed in this article its not suitable for the lede section.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not actually in the Lead section, it's in a footnote. The reason it's there is to help deter the Finns who continually want to change the statement in favor of their "air force" being the first. If you doubt me, take a look at the article's history. If you still disagree, please raise this on the articel's talk page, and try to gain a consensus to remove it. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• About this statement, why the change of mind? You are not wrong, you know? And I am 100% behind you on this. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 16:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I never doubted that, and thanks. I'm not changing my mind, just tired of him telling me what I think, and acting like I don't know what I'm doing, while he completely misses the point! That last sentence in my post there is complete sarcasm! - BilCat (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Bill, no sarcasm is allowed when you put up a straight face, this isn't a poker game... ya'know? Jeez! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 16:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• and there you go again... was that really necessary? \(-_-)/ --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 17:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't everything I do necessary? ;) - BilCat (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Right. :) Btw, a dick just came by my talk page and did a drive-by, but I just removed the dicklish/trollish comment... you got any permanent solution? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 06:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It might be time for a couple of hours off WP for you! I've posted at the stupid ANI, and said he was as much at fault for not backing off when you deleted his post. Btw, as far as I know, you can rollback on your own page for any reason, so he's wrong there. He's playing all innocent, but he's either verry easily offended, or was baiting you. Time will tell. - BilCat (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, you just made my day~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 08:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) Did you see his response to my first post? I had to work hard to be civil myself in responding to him! On another topic, have you been able/will you be albe to go to the Singapore Air Show? Flight Global has all kinds of stuff about it this week, so I wondered if that was something you could go to. - BilCat (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Classic trolling/bait trap, right? Anyway, I would love to go there but somehow my boss needs me at the new hangar more than he wants to see me at SAS 2010 (for some strange reason, he's going to be there!)... but fret not, I can always go there during the weekends, which is my family's domain. So what do you have in mind? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 09:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

First, it sounds like great fun! (That's one of the drawbacks of living in a large counrty - nothing like that is ever close to where I live!) Anyway, if you can take pics, take pics of EVERYTHING! :) Usually, Commons ends up getting some good pics from such shows, so hopefully this one will too. - BilCat (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• No guarantee but I'll see what I can do, the Missus is already complaining about the current hot weather here (it's 35 degree Celsius out in the open and don't forget about the high humidity too!), while I'm worried more about the mode of transportation there... I could drive there or I could take the Free-of-charge but over-crowded shuttle bus. Or maybe... someone is going to give me a free trade day pass and voila~! Problem solved. Let's keep our fingers crossed, shall we? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, family should come first! Your weather is typical of ours in June, July and August, but right now, I wish we had some - we actualy had some snow last weekend. Just have fun, whatever else you can do. - BilCat (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hey Bill, I managed to snap some shots at the SAS 2010 whilst under the influence of flu medication... not sure how if it is up to mark but I'll let you know later as I'm nursing a lobster red skin condition now from the Sun-burn I got today. Cripes... it was like 36-37 degrees outside~! :( --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 13:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

New Delhi

Hello BilCat. I hope you are doing well. Thanks for your concern on the New Delhi article. However, I believe you are mistaken. New Delhi has three official languages: Hindi, Urdu, and Punjabi (source). I would encourage you to please revert your edit on the article. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to India in general, as that is the usual pactice now on India-related articels, to just list Hindi only, and no other languages. - BilCat (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe there is such a practice and I have been working on South Asian related articles for years. Could you please point me to the policy you are referring to? Thanks, Anupam^Talk 17:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, say, can you see also?

Re this, my impression was it was because they were all hi-tech futuristic stuff; "My Mother, the Car", not so much. If you care. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Stingray wasn't high-tech/futuristic at all - it was just a Corvette Stingray. Once, the ,ain character mounted a frame on the nose with different headlights so it could appear to be different cars while tailing a suspect at night, but that's more of a low-tech gadget. Viper is from a different era, and basically a non-talking Knight Rider clone. - BilCat (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the common theme was supposed to be crime-fighting/problem-solving team shows centered around a vehicle. By the way, I noticed that similar "See Also" lists, all of which include Airwolf, are still present in Automan, The Highwayman, Knight Rider, Street Hawk, and Viper. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I never watched "Stingray". Sue me. ;p I think the crimefighting angle has some merit. I'd have nominated them all as no story, made up for by lots of SPFX & neat toys. (Not that this is a bad thing. ;D I thought Yancy Butler made "Mann & Machine". Which didn't make any of those lists, oddly.... :/ ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yancy Butler makes anything she's in! The list in Airwolf was basically of shows with a high tech machine in the starring role. Anyway, the first season of Stingray is worth watching. It was about 20 years ahead of its time in being very dark (often literally!), with a character with a covert background, and even a hint of modern cynicism towards goverment, especially the military. However, it still had much of the Steve Cannell trademark fun and adventure element, along with some optimism, that is missing from most modern dramas nowadays. That last, along with the eternal cynicism, is one reason I'll always prefer the original BSG to the newer BSG-in name only. If I want to be depressed, I'll watch the news! - BilCat (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• "If I want to be depressed, I'll watch the news! - BilCat" → Right then, will it be CNN or Fox or CBS for you, sir? Personally, I'd go with George Carlin, David Letterman or Craig Ferguson anytime... they're depressingly funny~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 09:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yancy is the first woman I've ever seen where I noticed her smile first. Best in the business. (Right up there: Jane Krakowski and Kate Hudson.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

IHI F3

Hey Bill,

I wanted to let you know that I've started a sandbox for the IHI F3 engine on in my userspace. When looking for a photo I found your sandbox... It didn't seem like you had done much there, so I hope you don't mind me continuing the one in my space. You were the one who started working on getting the Japanese aero-engine articles over here, so I didn't want to step on any toes. And, of course, I would very much welcome any contributions you can make, as you may already have some sources picked out. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to copy or play in any of my sandboxes. I procrastinate, so sometimes they languish for quite awhile. Jeff and I have cooperated that way in the past. In fact, he did most of the work on the F-111B sandbox I had created. Btw, when others work on my sandbox articles, especially major work as in Jeff's case, I usually move the article to mainspace with the move feature so there work is credited in the history; sometimes an admin will need to do the move if there is histroy at the new title. If I'm the only one to have editoed, then I'll cut-and-paste if I can't do a dierct move, since I'll be in the history anyway. - BilCat (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ishikawajima-Harima F3 is now up, feel free to fix any messes I've made there! -SidewinderX (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Thanks for the welcome back BilCat :) I've been watching the development of the new template from the sidelines, and it's a truly impressive piece of work. I'll admit to some fundamental misgivings about it though, based on my experience in developing the aerospecs template some time back.

As I saw it, there were two fundamental, inherent problems with the aircraft specifications template then in majority use. The biggest of these were the rigid "switches" that worked OK for most heavier-than-air craft but came badly unstuck by oddball designs and by anything lighter-than-air. The new template also nicely avoids these, and can cater for (as far as I can see) anything within our purview of things that fly though aerodynamic and/or aerostatic lift. However, the second major problem I had with "aircraft specifications" is its invitation to cruft -- something that the new template not only retains, but perhaps even adds to. In building aerospecs, I deliberately kept the fields as narrow and minimalist as possible; and indeed, as time went by, it became apparent that I'd excluded some which turned out to be important. Unfortunately, there's plenty of evidence around Wikipedia that people will not exercise restraint and confine themselves to the few parameters that matter most, and will instead try to "tick every box".

So from a technical and theoretical point of view, I think the new template is great; from a practical and "social engineering" point of view, I have very strong reservations. I also strongly oppose the use of knots and nm when describing aircraft in a work such as Wikipedia, but that's another fight. :)

Anyway, it's great to be back! :) Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Good to have you back! I understand your concerns, and there was a lot of discussion on the general parameters during development. The current version isn't necessarily the final product, so jump right in and help out! It will be good to have another editor involved who can work with the coding. The discussions have pretty much stalled right now, so your input may help revive discussion, and get us on the path to producing a final version.

As to the knots,/nm issue, I think you're in the minority on that one! Anyway, some sources (rare though though may be) only provide knots/nm measurements (where applicable), so not having them would be problematic as far as using totally converted figures in the template.

Finally, if you haven't have a chance to chechout the latest on the Aero-engin task force, please do. Even if that's not your area of interest, we've been able to cover alot of ground in a year, but some fresh input would be good too. - BilCat (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Singapore Airshow 2010

Hey Bill, as promised... photos! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 18:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC) (PS: I'm kind of disappointed at this year's airshow... not much interesting military hardware around! / PPS: I'll post more photos later... ;P )

• 
  RSAF's G550 CAEW (still ironing out the bugs!)
• 
  CH-47SG of 127 Squadron, Republic of Singapore Air Force
• 
  Bell 429 at the Singapore Air Show 2010
• 
  AN/AAQ-13 & AN/AAQ-14 LANTIRN on F-15E
• 
  Fully laden Boeing AH-6 Little Bird
• 
  Fully laden Boeing AH-6 (side view)

Nice, and thanks. I see you've added the G550 AEW image to that article. I've just added the AH-6 pic to the Boeing AH-6, which had no images at all. Thanks much, in spite of your flu bug and sunburn. - BilCat (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Blue whisper?

When/if you get your Blue Thunder helo page up, msg me? I'd like it on my watchlist. (I'd offer to help with it, if I had a clue. ;p) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In re this: Happy to tinker, but be advised, it'll get probably stranded in my sandbox space, since I'm terrible at moving (& I understand the preference is not just to copy paste); if copy paste isn't an issue, tho... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You can just work on it where it is, as I don't think Jeff will mind, though you could ask to be safe. When it's ready to go to mainspace, I or Jeff will move it so as to keep all the contributors in the history. - BilCat (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Or, I can move it back to my userspace if Jeff wants to be rid of it! ;) - BilCat (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind. Or one of you is welcome to move the article to your user space. I don't have any real sources to use on it. I have a DVD set for the TV series, but not the movie. Trekphiler is off to a good start here, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: Trekphiler did some good work on it at User:Trekphiler/SM Thunder Air. I copied all the new text to User:Fnlayson/Blue Thunder (helicopter) and combined the repeated parts. See what you think. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I had a look yesterday, but I'm still having health problems this week, so I'm taking an informal break. Plus with the KC-X drama, I need one! The article looks good to me, so go ahead and take it live when you're ready. - BilCat (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, hope they improve soon. Did more clean up and moved the article to Blue Thunder (helicopter) a little while ago. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Bad link

Hi BilCat,

I noticed that on the main portal page...under "Geography and Places"..."United States" that the link to the state of Georgia (USA) actually goes to the country of Georgia. I am an infrequent editor on Wikipedia....could not figure out how to correct the link. Saw that you had edited the state of Georgia (USA) page in the past...thus this note. Thanks! Sierra Hotel 058 (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I couldn't find what you are talking about. Perhaps if you post on the talk page of the portal you mentioned, a regular editor their can help.. - BilCat (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Gridiron lede

Firstly good luck with your health issues (i'm going through something minor myself)...hope things get better. The reference to the term Gridiron summarizes the article and its usage in UK‎..on a sidenote, i play for a team in a Gridiron league myself in North-West England (not very well might i add..lol). CheersAaronTownsend (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and I hope you get better soon also. The Lede already mentions that the term is used in some countries outside North America, and that would include the UK. I beleive the term is also used in Ireland, but I don't know to what extent. We could probably add a "Usage" section to the articel, and list a few more countries were the term is used, if we can find some sources to cite. - BilCat (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem.AaronTownsend (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If we're gonna move it, we could at least clean up the mess

Please help out. I am doing as many as I can, but there are lots of links to work through. See [1] and change [[Professional football]] to [[Professional American and Canadian football]]. Thanks. --Jayron32 19:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

JF-17 Specifications

The latest info board is of PAC kamra from IDEAS- Check the link here below for confirmation: http://forum.pakistanidefence.com/index.php?s=f52f10d45e9e41664dc2160be5f2d6e0&showtopic=21073&st=4120&p=1199853&#entry1199853

http://www.pakdef.info/forum/showthread.php?10718-JF-17-related-discussion-November-December-2009/page6 - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.52.238 (talk)

Forums aren't accepted as reliable sources on WP. Please discuss his on the JF-17 Talk page if you feel these are reliable. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Those forums are pakistani forums saying that was the brochure at IDEAS. I've given 2 separate links confirming that brochure is from IDEAS. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.52.238 (talk)

Then you need to discuss this on the JF-17 talk page, and WAIT for a consensus to change the information. Right now, you in violation of WP:3RR, and subject to being blocked at any time. Tread carefully. - BilCat (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your health issues.

Sliceofmiami (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry...

[2] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You'rs forgiven. I'll just stay out of the way anyway, as I'm overreacting myself. Btw, I said "non-productive", not "unproductive" - I was trying to asumme good faith a little. - BilCat (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't stay out of the way because I was a jerk... what do you think of the new combined list? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As I stated - twice - I'm fine with the list however it is arranged. The headings were a bit odd, but I understand the intent. A straight list by alpha order is probably the best solution. The History section is broken down by region, so that covers location well enough. - BilCat (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, BilCat

Wow. Judging by the 13 archives, and the size of the current page, this is one happening place!

Anyway, that editor, or at least his/her 71.x.x.x IP, may be out of our proverbial hair for a while, as s/he got a 3-month block. Thanks a lot for your help. SamEV (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope the block works! - BilCat (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Your Standards

Resolved

 – Ironically, the complainant was BLOCKED~!

Hi Billy, stop applying your own standards to the rest of Wikipedia; use Wikipedia's. Thanks! --91.55.97.142 (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi IPpy, I actually haven't a clue who you are, as this is the only edit your IP has made. You are obviously one of the many cowards who hides behind their IPs in order to harass people for no good reason. WP might allow such behavior through its open editing policy, but it certainly isn't a recommended "standard" of behavior. Grow up, and take responsibility for yourself, whoever you are. - BilCat (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"Coward", "harras", "Grow up", do you really think this is acceptable behaviour? Do you really assume good faith? --91.55.97.142 (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• YES! You are a nameless coward. If you really have a problem or an opinion with Bill, speak up and discuss it like a man instead of trolling around here like a mouse from the sideline and hiding behind an IP address. This behavioural pattern pretty much summarize what your character is like, don't you think so? And if you really have something to say, get straight to the point! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 20:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me quote from this very edit page: "If you create an account, you can conceal your IP address [...]" So who is hiding?

Anyway, please stop the personal attacks. --91.55.97.142 (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Now I know, you were in an war of word with me back last year using dynamic IP addresses from Germany to edit. Shame you didn't learn to think for yourself instead of wasting our time on you, which (per WP:DENY) I shall now bid you adieu! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 20:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, maybe you confuse me with some other IP you insulted. But it's easy, just show the diffs. --91.55.97.142 (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There is new content on WP:WQA. --91.55.97.142 (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this IP account has been blocked for 31 hours. Nick-D (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, and your comment at WQA on being polite is noted as needed. Thanks, Dave - I took a few hours offline, and it's been resolved already! Good show! - BilCat (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• The IP admits to using 91.55.112.142 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) to edit before he switch to 91.55.97.142 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS), and he was thrice reverted by you on C-135 Stratolifter~! And now, a word from our sponsor... "he who smelt it, dealt it". Bye, I'm hitting the sack now. *grin* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 23:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even figure out who he was until some time after he left the first harrasment note above. Removing the colons on the variants list on the C-135 page was completely strange, but Milb1's added in contnet now, which ws the purpose of the list. Then he kept moving the Commons link from above the navboxes to the Refs heading. He didn't use edit summaries, so I haven't a clue what that was about. I think this guy is the one complaining about broken "style sheets" from a couple months back, but since he's on dynamic IPs, he has no edit history (hence the "hiding" - you don't know who he is when he has only one edit to his current IP.) In my opinion, he's more of a tenditious editor than a deliberate troll, but his running to ANI/WQA all the time is definiely trollish, and the bragging about reveeting me on his latest talk page is also trollish. If he'd register, I'd know who he is and steer clear of him if needed, but that's not possible here. Oh well! - BilCat (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed; they've certainly got a very unconstructive editing style. Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Northrop deleted

Northrop has been deleted. Maybe you are going to move Northrop Corporation there or something. Just letting you know if so. Take it easy.. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I moved [[[Northrop Corporation]] to Northrop awhile back. I've reconsidered it, as both [[[Northrop Corporation]] and Northrop Grumman are important topics. Feel free to speak up if you disagree. Lot of links to change, though, so I may have to find someone with AWB or something to change the links. - BilCat (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no real preference. Northrop Corporation is the proper full name, but is/was commonly known just as Northrop. So not much difference in my opinion. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Mikoyan MiG-29 operators

On the surface it looks like you are engaged in an WP:EW on List of Mikoyan MiG-29 operators . Is there more than meets the eye there? Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. See WT:AIR#Disruptive editing, and User talk:75.80.151.51. If you'll check my contributions, I am using an edit summary, but not on every revert of this user's edits. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The IP user was blocked for a whole 55 hours this time. So we get like a 2+ day break. WooHoo. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarizing?

About this editor → Aristofane di bisanzio (talk · contribs) ← (yes, its another "helpful" Italian again...), I find his edit here on F-8 Crusader and here on Hawker Siddeley Nimrod to be verbatim copies from books I've read somewhere but couldn't recall them. WP:Copyvios? Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 08:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh my! Where do they make these guys?? He's quoting Italian sources just like ol' Step-on-me, but does seem to write slightly better, or at least has a better machine translator. Anyway, I'm on an idiot-break for a couple of days to get my blood pressure back down, as I spent most of my edits yesterday dealing with vandals and trolls. Oh the joys of open editing! It's probably best to take this to WPAIR, at least before you get blocked for 3RR by some overzealous admin! :) - BilCat (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Don't worry Bill, I think both Nick-D and Mill knows me better than to block me up since I've informed them both of the anomaly at those two articles. And Mill agreed that it looks like something lifted from them Italish/Englian books, he'll check it and get back once he gets a hit. I hope! I'm getting too old for this shit now... can't even remember from which book I read those exact text... sheesh! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 14:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Although it doesnt apply to this user it does appear strange that the contributions are mainly in clear english but any edit summaries and talk pages contents is written in Italish or Englian! MilborneOne (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Good fix

Good fix on KC-767, thanks. I didn't think much about rest of that sentence. Take it easy. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the typo fix. I didn't read the given source there, so it might actualy say Boeing is the likely winner. The FlightGlobal piece is more comprhensive, and mentions EADS going it alone or with LM. I didn't add that part since it's the KC-767 article, not the KC-45.

Also, the KC-767 article is quite badly arranged per WPAIR/PC, but it might be the best format for the current content. If Boeing does win the contest, they'll different a new designation (KC-45 or another one), and a split would definitely be warranted at that time. As to the interim, in the NewGen info begins to overshadow what's there, a split would need to be considered then too, probably to Boeing NewGen Tanker. - BilCat (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that article is not arranged ideally. I'd rather have more info on the aircraft itself, but the details are scarce. I think we can wait until there's a selection and probable designation assigned before splitting off an article on the KC-4x aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Since this thing has taken nearly 10 years, my take is that the KC-767 isn't really a "sole competior", just the last plane standing. We'll see how it goes. Also, while I don't have a philosophical problem with buying European, the US economy needs all the help it can get, and the NewGen is a mostly-American product. The KC-10s will need to be replaced, and as we've talked about before, the next tanker contest will probably be for a larger tanker.With the Obaministration's reluctance to spend money on the military, it doesn't take a genius to figure out they'd probably favor a smaller tanker this time. Boeing learned it's lesson in the last round, and prepared both smaller and larger tanker proposals, just in case. EADS has A310 tankers, and though its no longer in production, I think EADS could have come up with a modernized A300/310-based offering as a hedge if the USAF favored a smaller tanker, but they did not - that was their choice, not Boeing's or the US government's. They need to quit whining. - BilCat (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

True, the last dazed & bloody fighter standing. ;) NG/EADS could have tried to get the A330 tanker costs down too. In a Defense Daily article today they quote a Pentagon spokesman saying "We may be in a position where we will be able to take a look at compressing some of those milestones." That'll help get the tankers faster and should save some costs. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Looked like EADS was not bidding last week. But there is media speculation they are seeking a partner for bidding. The drama never stops. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's always fun to watch what EADS does! There were a couple of good articles in Flightglobal on the airliner Re-engining wars, here and here. John Leahy of AIrbus makes his usual snipes at Boeing, giving them advice on they should do! (I'm always amazed when companies or politicians offer free advice to their competitiors! Boeing would do well to remember that advice is worth what they paid for it!) Boeing is dealing with a basically 45-year-old design in the 737, 20 more years more than what Airbus is dealing with on the A320, a point Mr. Leahy conviniently leave out of his "advice"! My prediction: Airbus commits to the A320E, then Boing announces an all-new design, possibly a twin isle a la the 7J7, and perhaps even with rear mounted engines to allow for open rotor engines, but going with fans near-term. Then, following Airbus' pattern with the 787/A350, they send out Leahy to bad-mouth the new Boeing design for a few months, then decide a new design is better than the A320E, and launch a new one, perhaps in as many iterations as the A350 went through! But only time will tell! - BilCat (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL! That's sums it up pretty well. Boeing says they will announce 737 enhancement plans after the Farnborough Air Show this summer, probably late this year. I have read that the 737 replacement will be composite like the 787. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've read that too. They can hardly do that with the 737 itself, as it would in effect be a new design. This report today says Boeing is looking towards the end of the year to make an announcemnt, and details what the think they'll need. Airbus is shooting to decide by July. Anyway, this is the fun part of following aviation, for me anyway! I think a twin-aile composite fuselage new design is probably Boeing's best bet here, something sized from about 150-250 seats to replace the bigger 737s and the 757. The below 130-seat market is pretty cramped right now, so Boeing might come up with something different, or, something I haven't heard yet, partner with one of the smaller airframers that already has a design in the pipeline. Again, we will see! - BilCat (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You were right: Per FlightGlobal on Friday, EADS considers re-entering KC-X bidding as prime contractor. - BilCat (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Think they are asking/hoping for more time to make a bid. EADS North America seems to be pushing for this turn around. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Bill, you might like this article Osprey at War (Air & Space mag). There are a couple associated V-22 videos on that page too. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This is something long-overdue, both of us have gotten our fair share of trollish remarks & vandalism edits by newly registered and anon ip editors, I'm requesting to MilborneOne (talk · contribs) on your behalf to semi-protect this talk page against edit by IPs and newly registered users. You may retract it if you don't feel it's right for me to help you this way, cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 05:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Bit reluctant just to protect the article at the moment I know it is not always convenient but it is on my watchlist so if the IP users come back I will act. Just to note the guidline says User talk pages are rarely protected, and are semi-protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users. MilborneOne (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

L-1000

You added a dubious tag in the L-1000 article, but offered no explanation. What do you find dubious about the claim in question? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Major League Baseball

Like you, I reverted the addition of flags to this article but then I had a closer look at MOS:FLAG: "A common example of use of subnational flags is in tables or lists of sporting information with regard to subnational teams; in such contexts, the appropriate flag is of course not the national one, if multiple entries in such listing would end up with the same flag." This seems to be followed in the NFL and the NHL articles as well. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that the flags on the NFL and MHL articles were added on the same day as those on the MLB page. THe NHL page uses US and Canadian flags by consensus, and the sub-national flags were reverted. - BilCat (talk) 06:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Re: Governor of Alaska/List of Governors of Alaska: Thanks! I really appreciate it. Neutrality^talk 07:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for shouldering the Diesel engine rocket removal change. I wasn't game to incite a flame war.124.170.223.178 (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. - BilCat (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

engines

Hi, is there somewhere a list of engines like this already created ? Dont you think might be useful ? --Jor70 (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

[Moved to user page]

Thanks! You'v made my month! - BilCat (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well earned for all your hard work, Bill! - Ahunt (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

B-ranger, good job on getting hte Beechcraft XT-36 page up. I was just looking at the Beechcraft navbox this week, and was thinking that we needed on article on the XT-36. Glad to see you could put it together. - BilCat (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, glad I was able to help! I'm hoping to eventuall get all the red links on List of military aircraft of the United States turned blue, even if only as stubs for now. :) - The Bushranger (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force Hyūga (16DDH)

This 'destroyer' has a displacement of 18,000 tons full load, a full-length flight deck, and operates up to 11 helicopters. Wouldn't you describe that as a LPH!? The only reason it's not classified as such is due to the stigma of Japan reviving naval aviation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrackDragon (talk • contribs)

I've replied on the article's talk page. - BilCat (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Amphibious assault ship

Hi Bill, I agree the issue appears to be over, though I've watchlisted the article just in case. Let me know if you see anything else... Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Number of warships in service worldwide

I've recently linked to this page from several others. Although a good idea, it's currently in a slightly chaotic state due to the obvious difficulties in maintaining it! I've done my best with the current number of capital ships, but maybe you should take a look and make some input! CrackDragon (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed-wing aircraft

I re-did the undo that you made on Fixed-wing aircraft regarding Gustave Whitehead. There is considerable documentation of Gustave Whitehead's achievements both on his Wiki entry and in the aviation history entry, as well as other places within Wikipedia. - Graff 74.89.158.24 (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BilCat. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 02:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Your revert for the pentagon

I noticed that you reverted my edit for the April fools prank they posted about moving it and I do not agree. I do not think this is news I think this is just what it is an interesting joke/event that was done regarding the pentagon and as such it is not unreasonable to put a small bit about its occurance. Using your same logic the shooting that occurred there should also be removed but I am not advocating that either. I am not going to get into an edit war over it but I will pose it as a question on the MILHIST project talk page and see what the consensus is for putting this info out there. Cheers --Kumioko (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for not editwarring. I'll be surprised if you get a consensus to put it back, but I've been surprised before! - BilCat (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised anytime consensus is reached in WP. After all this isn't a democracy, its a Wiki. --Kumioko (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

52+K

Dear Bill: Congratulations on reaching 52,000 edits. That is a heck of a lot of work you have done here on Wikipedia! According to the greatest hits list, on 24 Feb 10 you were the 347th contributor at that time. - Ahunt (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much! I'd love to know what percentage of those edits were deveored to rverting/fighting vandalism. Sadly,I think it'd be at least a qarter to a third, if not more. - BilCat (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Congrats Bill. That's a sad thought on the vandalism percentage. I'm going to try not think about that... -Fnlayson (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Bill, let me know if you need help with vandalism or something. I don't watch as many articles as you and can miss this stuff sometimes. That can a bad or a good thing, depending. :) Take it easy. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There's a couple or 3 pages I might have you watch. I'll let you know as I come across them. - BilCat (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. Just let me know if needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Flags of the Confederate States of America

Hi BilCat. You've confused my editing of this article for vandalism, which it is not. I'll re-post here the basis for the inclusion of related links and perhaps also on the discussion page of the article itself. Thanks.

You need to discuss this on the article's talk page. That fact that you did not do so first, and did not use edit summaries inb your edits, and continually reverted several uesers who removed you additions, is what led me to warn you for vandalism. Stop re-adding your info, and try to gain a consesnus to add your additions first. Otherwise, you do risk being blocked for disruptive editing. - BilCat (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Bil - this does appear on the article's talk page - please stop vandalizing my edits.

Removing non-consensual edits is NOT vandalism. I removed the vandalism warning from your page onec I was aware that you made it in good faith. I don't appreciate being called a vandal myself in response! I said there was no discussin of this on the talk page, not that you had edited the talk page. Please stop, slow down, and discuss this first on the article's pagem which we are now doing. If other editors support you, the links will be re-added then. - BilCat (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

My bad~! TBH, I've not heard of Stanley's preaches but Joseph is very very real in my personal view. Indeed, his view and approach to prosperity theology is shared by me and some of my friends (by now, a very obvious give-a-way, eh?) who had came to know about the Law of Attraction through The Secret (book)/The Secret (2006 film), as well as from a series of books by Esther Hicks, including The Amazing Power of Deliberate Intent. Again, sorry about the nose parking/poking... that's what happens when you have a volcano blowing up somewhere far far away and people like us have to do additional/extraneous work (overnight shift right now!) to ensure that the 380 still flies without any hiccup in this part of the world. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. And I hope I did not offend by my comments on prosperity theology. Their are frauds within every belief system, and I didn't mean to offend if I lumped Prince in with some of them. Obviously I disagree with that theology, but a person's faith is between him and God ultimately. If you'd like to talk further on this or related matters, I'd be happy to do so privately. Good luck with the whale-sitting! - BilCat (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalizing`??+

How can i help Wikipedia then without writing facts? 88.192.43.147 (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Delta Air Lines

Just wanted to say that I thought you made an excellent point over at the Delta Air Lines article. I’m trying to still assume good faith, but I’m beginning to worry that some editors there are deliberately ignoring Wikipedia policy, perhaps because of some anti-Delta bias. Since this has been going on for a couple years, do you think it would be worth asking for help at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard? — Satori Son 13:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

PAK-FA and F-22 edit wars

...and it seems that, with the PAK-FA article temporarily locked up, one of the "Eurofighter isn't comparable" crowd has now gone over to the F-22 article and removed the statement that it's comparable there. - The Bushranger (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sigh! Editing on WP now involves full-time baby-sitting! Not exactly why I joined, especially considering what we get paid. The only reason I'm still editing here is that there is no reasonable alternative out there yet. But I keep hoping. That, or Jimbo resigns (or is forced out), and a sensible leader implements some changes to keep his volunteers from going insane! - BilCat (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. And "Aardvark II"? I love it. Although it's a slur against the poor 'Vark that actually managed to turn into something half-decent! =P - The Bushranger (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"Aardvark II" was one of those bits of instant inspriration that happens every so often when writing. Anyway, why don't we ever see reports about how much government buracracy and "oversight", not to mention haphazzard funding and constant government-caused delays (The KC-767/KC-X fiasco is a government-caused fiasco, caused by Congressional graft and blamed on Boeing), adds to military projects? I really don't have a clue, but I bet it's more percentage waste then the tax portion of the price on gas! One of my favorite quotes, attributed to President Reagan, is, "One of the scariest phrases is, 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you'"! - BilCat (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Remind of anyone? TBH, Bill this does remind me of Sledge Hammer's unintentionally ironic motto: "Trust me. I know what I'm doing." (Disaster usually follows.) as uttered in the 80's TV series - Sledge Hammer!. Toodles~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 09:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice to meet you

Hello BilCat, I noticed you on the AN/I board because of the similarity of our user names. I then checked out your talk page and saw that you are interested in religion. If you have the time, and health permitting, come over to the Christ myth theory page and take a look around, and see if it is a topic you would like to contribute to. Have a nice day. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Meow! Thanks for the invitation. I don't usually edit on those types of pages because they can be so polarizing - Airbus-Boeing disutes are bad enough! I do notice that we have no pages about Buddha as myth, Socrates as myth, Mohammed as myth, and so on. I always find that interesting - I'm sure the theories are out there, but they don't get much traction or attention. - BilCat (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they sure can be polarizing. But, in any event, no problem. Take care. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A-4M Template

Ah, that occured to me as a possibility after I'd done the edit (and stuck the box on the current A-4 page). Sorry 'bout that. - The Bushranger (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem! It will probably take me a few months before it's ready, so the McDD template is fine on the A-4 page for now. - BilCat (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Armed forces / Military

Could you clarify your position in Talk:Armed_forces#Merge_discussion? Is the speculation of Martynas Patasius close to your opinion? The current definitions inside the articles are equivalent from my POV and it's very hard to handle the interwiki links. Thank you. --Nk (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's close to my position, but often navies and coast guards are treated as separate from the military. - BilCat (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This ought to be taken up at WT:MILHIST to gain a broader input from the community that uses the terms. So let's not continue the discussion here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope you get well

Good luck. SamEV (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I second that! - Ahunt (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ditto. Bill, I hope its not the bp again but in any case, relax and take it easy, alright~? Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 02:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! No, my bp is the one of the few things that does work correctly! - BilCat (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see you back "on", even though you never left! Wikipedia is one activity that you can do from bed! - Ahunt (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

List of aircraft of the Indian Air Force

Hello, I am not sure you are aware of this, but the whole article for active aircraft is single sourced. You can find it on the article. This source was agreed upon by me and administrator User:Buckshot06. This allows the article to give consistent figures from a wikipedia:reliable source. Thank you for your time. Recon.Army (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I finally figured that out. Sources aren't to be put in headings, and that was what had confused me, since they shouwed up in the edit summries. Anyway, I usually revert most edits made by certain 59- series IPs, since there is a person who uses that range to make edits that are often controversial or wrong,m but never ever discusses them. - BilCat (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

<delurk>They may have agreed it as a source but it is a fanboy/amateur website I would have though something official or Flight or Aviation Week & Space Technology would be better. It is a site that is added regularly to air force article (I suspect by interested parties) although other sources would be better. MilborneOne (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Michael. I've raised questions about its reliability before. One of the edits I reverted on the page removed an AvWeek or similar source. Is there a page where we can raise the issue of Milavia's reliability, and get this issue settled? Yhabks. - BilCat (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The source should to be resolved, because that's a decidedly nifty list, very well-formatted. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 17:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Tank ship move

Very sorry for my premature move of tank ship - and for the politeness of your reversion. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

Thanks, and no problem. - BilCat (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sangeet

As your name crops up a fair bit in the article history of Sangeet, I thought you might like to chip in at Talk:Sangeet#Undiscussed_redirection. Thanks. --Ibn (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Note

Bill, is your email enabled~? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 04:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It's says it's enabled. - BilCat (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Congratulations, you have mail~! :) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 04:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied. - BilCat (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Got it, your turn to serve now. :) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 04:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Bill, I hope that you have gotten my email-reply by now and that you would help to monitor my main and unprotected talk pages while I'm visiting the Shanghai Expo with the missus and lil'ones. Gotta go catch the flight now... cheers and regards~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 13:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Got it, and thanks. Enjoy your holiday! - BilCat (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"Unnecessary"

[3] Why do you feel that this information is unnecessary? When an accident happens, it's natural to include any follow-up corrective action, such as detailed in this article I helped write. Cla68 (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've started a discussion on it on the article's talk page. Is a crewmember dying during a peacetime accident and the ship's captain receiving an admiral's mast really a "minor" incident? Please discuss on the article talk page. Cla68 (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it really is, as related to the ship itself. WP is NOTNEWS; although most likely rare, I'm sure this isn't the first such incident in the USN. The csrriers that serve 40-50 years have probably had several, but I doubt they're written in our articles. Of course, I could be wrong. This would be relevant in an article on the captain, but I doubt he's notable enoungh for his own page yet, even with this incident. - BilCat (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

List of aircraft of the Indian Air Force

So an extensive list of equipment can be sourced from various sources? Is it not better to use one source for consistency? Different sources have different rules for calculation. While a single source regularly updated gives consistent updated figures. Administrator User:Buckshot06 also agrees a single source is the best way for the article and we both agreed upon the current source used. Recon.Army (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Not if the single source does not qualify as a reliable source. Admins do not have any more authority than regular users when it comes to judging sources. I brought this up, I believe at WT:AIR, but I'm having trouble finding the discussion. ANyway, the consensus there, including from at least one admin, was that the source was not reliable. - BilCat (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

OK I understand and respect that, however, can you please tell me the logic in having an article sourced with many non-reliable sources? The current single source that is used is also used on so many other Air-Force articles such as the French, German, Italian, Spanish, Japanese and many more. A single source like Orbat, which is updated, gives at least some consistent figures in-line with other sister articles that I mentioned. The Royal Air Force article is sourced directly from Government figures (House of Commons). Now the Indian AF article will never have figures as accurate as that, but at least a relatively reliable single source gives wikipedia a widely used and commonly respected single source used on many similar wiki articles. I would hate the article in discussion to return to the way it was with 20+ non-consistent, non-reliable sources all saying totally different things. This is what I am trying to avoid. Thank you for your time. Recon.Army (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot seam to find this discussion. Can you help me? Recon.Army (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There are more-reliable sources out there, such as from FlightGlobal and AvWeek, though they are not updated as often. There are other sources too that are reliable. Replacing them with one that is not reliable isn't good. The previous discussion I mentioned was prompted by your removal of reliable sources from several list articles. (I'm still lookinmg for it, but I think the archive bot lost the discussion! I'll check back later today, or reopen a new discussion at WT:AIR.) - BilCat (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Spinning wing engine

Why would you think that our legitimate start up company (registered in Campcaster) is a hoax? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.149.88 (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bad website address, for one. Anyway, WP only publishes material from reliable third-party sources, such as newspapers or journals. - BilCat (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Take care

and come back better than ever. SamEV (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's nice for someone to assum good faith on my reason for a wikibreak! - BilCat (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If you were to perhaps mind that your edit summaries might not always assume good faith as well. Anyway, take care; nobody here should have anything but well wishes for people outside of the petty world of electronic communication. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the well-wishes. - BilCat (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Offensive userboxes

I find your 'athiesm is harmful' and 'marriage is between one man and one woman' offensive and would appreciate their removal. Also, am I right in thinking that WP frowns on imflammatory userboxes? If so can you also take down the 'This user believes that life begins at conception / fertilization.', 'This user believes that theories supporting man-caused global warming/climate change are purposeful HOAXES perpetrated by knowing liars.!' and 'This user supports the impeachment of Barack Obama.'. Also on a personal note, you do pretty well to really annoy me as 5 of your user boxes are in direct contradiction of my beliefs, 1 attacking the largest portion my personal life, and the second attacking a large proportion of my professional life! Sam Lacey (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

WP allows quite a bit of leeway on userboxes, but you're welcome to your opinion. I added or created most of those infoboxes after seeing comparable ones from the opposite point of view. For example, User:BillCJ/UBX/atheism Is Harmful is a direct response to Template:User Religion Is Harmful - do you find that one to be offensive too, or does your support of free speech only only apply to those you agree with?? I found that one to be highly offensive, but people have a right to express their opinion (in the US at least, where WP is legally based), so I did too. You may feel free to take this to an apporpriate place on WP to complain, but until the admins make me remove them, they will remain. - BilCat (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded the wording on gwhoax. Of course I don't mean everyone involved is a knowing liar, but to qualify it would require too much space. - BilCat (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with User:Diafygi/Impeach/Userbox, and find it mildly offensive, but I understand that people are entitled to their own opinions, whether I agree with them or not. Am I? - BilCat (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You should really actually read what I said...I only find 'athiesm is harmful' and 'marriage is between one man and one woman' to be personally offensive - If there are userboxes you find offensive, by all means ask the owner to take them down. To be honest I don't really care what you find offensive or how you deal with it - its not my problem. As I said the others are inflammatory and I just don't see the point of being so opinionated on wiki and pissing a load of people off; is it something that gets you excited? I'd love to hear your explanation for how 'This user believes that life begins at conception / fertilization.' adds to wiki in the least. My objections have nothing to do with the application or lack thereof of free speech, I just don't see how being mean or inflammatory is anywhere near the spirit of wiki. As a final note please distinguish in your head the difference between what I disagree with and what I find offensive. To be honest I laugh at just about all of the userboxes you have on there, you couldn't be a more stereotypical uneducated redneck if you tried, frankly I think you stand as a better advert for the democrats than I ever could. As a scientist I actively welcome opposing points of view, and I am happy to argue the ones I care about. The two I've mentioned, however are personally offensive and personal attacks are not allowed on wiki. Sam Lacey (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just found the rules concerning userboxes, there's very little leeway. For ease I'll quote the pertinent section here for you.

Edit war over F/A-XX

I beg to differ with your undo. If I may quote from the source...

Meanwhile, the US Air Force has launched an early study called a capabilities based analysis for an F-22 replacement. Like the Super Hornet, the fighter remains in active production, but the air force expects a replacement will be required after 2025. If funding for a replacement programme can be found, there is likely to be pressure to launch a joint technology demonstration, where the air force and navy would co-operate on a next-generation air dominance fighter.

So there. Hcobb (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

One revert does not an edit war make! Unless you believe anyone who reverts you is edit warring! - BilCat (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm attempting to prevent the war by asking you to read the source before taking action on your understanding of it. Hcobb (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I did read it first. Putting that info in as is, especially in the Lead, is misleading, as there is no current plan for a joint program, and it's just speculation at this point. - BilCat (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi BC.
Thank you for tidying that little fuddle I got myself into here!
--Shirt58 (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries. At least your work was still in the history, and not "lost". I note you/ve been around WP awhile, so I assume you know how to set up a page on your userspace to work on complex rewrites or formatting changes. I'f not, I'd be happy to explaine how - it is quite simple. - BilCat (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your wise words! Though I do know how to add a userspace subpage (like this, for example), I really should know better, and as you said put it into practice for work on complex rewrites or formatting changes. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"What a LONG article..."

I have removed that section from the talk page on Talk:HAL Tejas because there is no way the discussion in that section can possibly help improve the article, and aside from the fact that the editor who posted it is a known vandal who made virtually no good faith edits on India-related articles in his few years on Wikipedia, it is presently being used by Ao333 to bait editors into flaming him. That section is nothing but harmful to the article and to the project. GSMR (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like more information on User:Ao333 please see this rather lengthy discussion on User:Elockid's talk page. Vedant (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. : On a side note, I have noticed you've reverted some of my edits but in the interest of not starting edit wars I have not contested. If you'll also notice, I deleted a claim on the F-14 article which was not sourced (namely that the aircraft was not reliable). It's worth mentioning that this claim was deleted anyways by User:Fnlayson (who you do have an association with) after he was unable to find any substantive sources to back it up. Whether you reverted my edit because you felt my argument was flawed or for some other reason, I would appreciate in the future if you could inquire with me as to why I made an edit before reverting it. Vedant (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No. I watch 9000 article, and I can't spend time to inquire why every editor made an edit first. Even one profilic editor would have enough edits that replying to each edit would be time consuming. I generally explain my reasons for reverting - if they are not sufficient, or if I left no edit summary, feel free to ask me about them. Thanks.

In general, it's not a good idea to outright delete converstaions to which several editors have replied. There may even be a guideline against it. A better solution would be to move them to the archive, where they can be more easily found for later reference than trolling through the talk page history. I'm not sure what your issue with Ao333 is, and I don't have time to look into it. If there is a big problem, take it up at ANI or a similar page, or ask an admin for some advice. - BilCat (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:TALK has a section on "removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely incivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived."

If you find yourself unable to monitor issues on certain articles, my suggestion to you is to watch less articles more closely. If you can't be bothered or don't have enough time to delve deeper into an issue, I suggest you investigate more thoroughly before pronouncing judgment. I already posted the reason why I have removed Ao333's and By78's posts and if you need information then refer to the Elockid's talk page that I posted above. By78 has been indefinitely banned because he violated numerous Wikipedia rules and engaged in sockpuppetry, POV-pushing, disruptive edits and racial accusations (see his talk page if you need more information). Vedant (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate the good faith of your advice, I'll edit as I wish - I have my own stlye of editing, and I'm satisfied with it as it is. As to the contiuied removal of old comments, if Ao333 is the problem, take him to ANI, and deal with it there. Removing the comments of admins is not a good idea, though I'll let him know what's happening so he can make that decision for himself. Now, this subject is ended here, so please move on. You can take it up somewhere else if you wish, but not here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

BilCat, thanks for everything

This might be the last entry for me here in Wikipedia, due what happen at U-2 page, which I felt frustrated and I withdrew all my inputs on that article for the last 8 months or so. After I did that, I found out the number of references dropped from 53 down to 32, guess I cited too many sources/references to keep away the reference needed tags. Maybe I have a fear of that tag, among other things here in Wiki. Anyway, I was going to suggest to add GPS cord. for those U-2 on display, plus on discussion page I did asked if it's better to create a Aircraft Losses section about a week ago, but got no respond. Well, that is, until Fnlayson did his editing/reverting. Guess I won't able try out neither idea after all. Thanks for all your help. Best wishes.Bryan TMF (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Article title proposal

Bill, did you manage to move this on to a proposal or is it still on your very long to do list! MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's still on my very long to-do list! Once the bronchitis is over in the next week or so (I hope!), I plan to submit it. If you want to help out (it's at User:BilCat/Template:Proposal or sumbit it, you're welcom to. Thanks for the reminder. - BilCat (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Boeing Phantom Ray

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yay!!!!!!!! My fist DYK, and only in about 4 years! I'm happy. :) - BilCat (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Now, how do I add this to my user page? - BilCat (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• It'd probably have to be copied like a wikiwings award. Bushranger has them in a show/hide template on his user page. But maybe there is a user box or template? -Fnlayson (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Edit warning

Hello,

First of all, thank you for the link towards the Wipedia Unit rule which I did not know. Speaking of that rule, how/where would one be able to request a vote to change this rule in order to homogenize the units throughout wikiepdia.

Secondly, it seems you did not notice I did not undo the "undo" of the previous user but in fact continued my edition throughout the whole article. To be more precise, as soon as I started reading through the rest of the article, it seemed clear it needed to be edited. Hence my modification. You can check that by comparing versions. To be honest, I did not even know my edition had be undone. Therefore, would you mind removing my "edit warning" as I was absolutely not trying to engage in a edit war. Xionbox (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be there in a few minutes. As to where to go to change things, try the talk page of WP:UNITS to start with, and ask there. The users who watch the talk pge should be able to give an answer of some type. - BilCat (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/May 2010 skin change/Bug reports

Bill: In thinking about your comments and our short discussion at User_talk:Fnlayson#Revert_tools_and_Vector from the above article it looks like many people have been having trouble with the new Vector layout. If you are still experiencing that previously mentioned problem, perhaps you will want to report it there? - Ahunt (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I did find the solution there, which involves copying the Monobook css and js pages to the vector ones. - BilCat (talk) 01:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That is great as long as it worked! Now hopefully the powers that be won't change the layout again for a while! - Ahunt (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I HATE the new layout - I don't like having everything spread out in sixteen places where they used to be in one! I'm still on monobook for the time being, but I'll keep trying out the new one every week or so. Eventually I'll get used to it. - BilCat (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I am using the new vector layout, but it takes some getting used to - like not diving to the top-left to hit the "edit" tab! I do like the cleaner look, though. - Ahunt (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

French Air Force

Looking at the sources used for the US Air force. RAF, TuAF and French Air Force it is obvious the French airforce comes in at 4th place in terms of aircraft, in NATO. Common sense is needed. I think the problem is on the French air force article it dosent say in which area the airforces are being ranked in size in. Is it number of Aircraft or number of personel? Recon.Army (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Which ever it is, it just needs to be stated clearly. In fact,, both parameters ought to be listed if they're available. - BilCat (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The hanging process

I half suspected this would happen after reading through his edits. I can't say I'm disappointed though... Vedant (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I can understand not wanting to wait 2 weeks or a month but I never thought someone would be willing to risk an extension of a previous block especially when it was just 31 hours... That being said, User:SH9002's previous edits lend credence to the theory that our friend and him are not one in the same as they appear to have differing editing styles. I do however, find it an AWFULLY BIG co-incidence that this other account starts editing the day after someone got a block. I could request a Check User block which would definitely clear the air regarding this. Thoughts?? Vedant (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I think I'm adding another user (User:NoBiasPlease) to my watchlist. He/she appears to have an interesting contribution log don't you think? Vedant (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Nakajima Kikka

Mr. BilCat, Ne-20 Japanese turbojet is very epoch-making. It is important for talking about Kikka. HighSpeed-X (talk) 10:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Talking, yes, photo, no - it has its own article for that. - BilCat (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Puss in socks

Bill, this, this & this will tickle you pink. Night~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 21:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your perserverance on this matter; it is much appreciated. Btw, I am a Caucasian of mostly Irish and Scots descent - complete with the easily sunburned very fair skin - I'm already pink! :) - BilCat (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Get ready your cool, dry and pink socks, he's just been told to go for a One-week-all-expense-paid-for-vacation with socks thrown in. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 06:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, all that happened about the time I got back online for the evening. Anyway, I'm still concerned about Wisp's editwarring, which has not been dealt with by the admins, and was the catalyst to all this. Also, he began this copy-cat stuff when I reverted him on the 737 page with a mild warning in the edit summary to not edit war. That unwarranated response is why I gave him a templated 3RR warning at his next revert; I believe a templated warning is recommended, if not required, before an admin will block for 3RR. Anyway, his uncivilness with me occurred before my first templated warning to him, but he'd already been borderline-uncivil on the 737 talk page with other users, esp. his use of "fanboyism" to describe anyone opposing the Airbus mention. When he gets off of his one week block (assuming it doesn't get increased), we'll see what happens. I'm going to try to head to bed now, so take care. - BilCat (talk) 07:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• You take care too, Bill. Or maybe I should award myself the anti-flame barnstar... because his flame on me didn't work and was turned against him! (read point number 18 & 48 of → WP:OWB ←) *lol* G'night~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 07:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at our friend's user page, and it is quite interesting. And quite biased, in spitie of his owbn protestations otherwise. Particullary, I found [[User:Wispanow #===Airbus <=> Boeing===|this]] to be quite ionteresting.

I've been thinking about the Boeing/Airbus issue for some time, and make take differs somewhat from his. As I see it, it was Airbus itself that created the Boeing "monopoly" (as if Airbus is not a monopoly in Western Europe!). The US had two vibrant airline manufacturers, oeing and McDD, and several other smaller ones (including Lockheed, which has made only 2 airliners post war: L-188 Electra and L-1011). Form what I've read on the founding of Airbus, thier intent was to take on the US as a whole, not to wittle down the number of US companies. However, the law of uninteded consequences meant that they actually killed off all of Boeing's prime competitors. Wispanows comments show the typically European mindset that misunderstands the US economy, and the federal government's (pre-Obama) role in it. In point, Airbus would never have survied to become as strong as it did without direct goverment subsidies. American companies have never had that advantage, but conversely have had large defense contracts (not subsidies in any way) to buy actual products. Grante, this wasn't )and still isn't) very feasible in Europe, as nationalism always seems to get in the way of such projects (especially French nationalism). Futher, Airbus probably would have never been founded if it weren't a primarily French idea.

Another factor I don't think Airbus understands fully is that Boeing, and the US, are not it's only competitors. I noticed this about 10-15 years ago with the regional jets form Bombardier and Emraer, and thought it would not be too long before both started to enter the over-100 seat market. That is in the process of happening now, with Embraer building a lartger military crgo jet (KC-390), which is probably a good step towards a mid-size jet. (Note that the KC-390 is a project to develop an actual aircraft, not a goverment subsidy to develop a new airline. Ironically, the French may buy the KC-390! In addition, the Russians and Chinese are preparing to tackle the mainline airliner market. As to how feasible these efforts are, I don't know. (you probably have a better sense on these than I do.) But if either one produces a good product, it's likely to be cheaper than the Boeings and Airbuses, and will undercut the markets for both of them, especially in the single-isle range, and in third-world countries, especially those leary of the US, where Airbus has thrived.

Finally to the 737RS/A320E: Airbus is publiclly advising Boeing that a reengining for 737 the is best option, as that is probably what they'll do. (John Leahy seems to think, at least in public, that Boeing is stupid, as he has regulary "advised" Boeing on their best course of action! Actually, it's a PR move designed to undercut what ever Boeing does decide to do in any given situation.) However, both Boeing and AIrbus know that the 737 is a 50-year-old design, and that the A320 is only about 30 years old. So while it might make sense for Airbus to go the re-engining route for the A320, it probably isn't the best choice for Boeing, especially since the 737 is so close to the ground that a complex redesign is probably necessary for new engines. Flightglobal had a story this weekend that Boeing is seriously considering a new single-isle design to replace the 737. How do I think Airbus will respond? I suspect they will take the 787/A350 route: Leahy will critize Boeing for developing a new design, but once Boeing starts to rack up orders, you'll probably see see Airbus trot out a new design as well! Time will tell! - BilCat (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Boeing's CEO McNerney recently said if an 'efficient 737 replacement' can be produced by 2020, it will go that route. If that'll take until after 2025, it will do 737 re-engining according to Heraldnet article. Not sure how much efficiency improvement that's required over the 737NG though. Maybe 15-20% like the 787 (??). -Fnlayson (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Archiving ?

Bill, this page is getting a bit long. What about archiving sections over a 2-3 months old? I could set up the archive bot to do that if you want... -Fnlayson (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, thanks. I think I have Procrastinators Syndrome, but I keep putting off the exam. ;) If you can, please set it to archive every month, leaving one month's posts. - BilCat (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• I set it up. But I doubt it will work with the nobots template in place. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I moved 3 awards from here to your user page so they aren't archived. Revert/modify if needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The archive settings have not been working. Will try adjusting the archive page size. I manually archived the 2009 sections, assuming you would not mind. Take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Finally got things set-up properly for the bot to archive. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Supper?

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Here's what you've ordered, sir! Seriously, I haven't watch the show so I really have no clue what is going on here but if you want me to help, give me a day or two so I can get something off the internet to research on before I make my comments known, what say you? More butter to taste? *grin* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 16:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Royal Navy

Please be a tiny bit more careful. Yes the speculation sentence may not be appropriate, but the rest of the added text, including about the Strategic Defence Review, is accurate and well balanced. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"Careful" had nothing to do with it. It's unsourced OR, true or no, and still a bit too much detail. Btw, you're way over 3RR on this. - BilCat (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You've added a good source, so it looks OK now. Take care. - BilCat (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Avio

Hi Bill. First off, apologies for any misuse of the talk page but I am quite a newbie at this. Plus I've recently commented in the Avio page but did not get any reply, that making me think I should have notified you in some way. I have been working on the Avio page and I've noticed that the advert mark has been added. Could you help me understanding what specific parts of the article need revising? Any suggestion will be much appreciated --Estergo (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

Since you seem to be one of the driving forces behind Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(aircraft)#Naming_convention_proposal_2010, I thought I would ask you: what is the rationale behind adding the manufacturers to the title of an article? Is it merely for consistancy across a confusing and often contradictory variety of national naming conventions, or is there another reason? bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's primarily consistency. In the early days of WP and WPAIR (long before I arrived in Aug 2006), two-component aircraft article titles were preferred to those with trhee component, apparently because of the limitations of the Wikibrowser at that tiem, and limited or no redirect capability. Two-component title formats were Manufacturer-Designation (m-d), Manufacturer-Name (m-n), and Designation-Name (d-n). The m-d or m-n formats worked best for most of the world's aircraft types, including US civil types, in keeping with the Common name guidelines. However, for US military types, the d-n format was most common (ie, F-15 Eagle, not McDonnell Douglas Eagle or McDonnell Douglas F-15). So, the d-n format was allowed for US militray aircraft which had both a designation and nameunder the various designation systems used by the US military. By extention, the d-n format was also applied to Canadian Forces aircrft under the post-2968 designation system.

In the last few years, however, the d-n system has come under assault, with several efforst to make it more consistent with the other titles. However, the M-n or m-d still weren't really feasible per Common names. As time has rolled on, the title and the redirct systems on WP have become more sophisticated, and the three-component titles, primarily Manufacture-Designation-Name (m-d-n) became feasible. But even until last year, there were many who objected to changing the system soley for US mil aircraft. There was a poll in 2009 that attempted to change the format, and in had almot no support. I was also against it then,

Since then, the thrre-component m-d-n format has become more common on newly created articles, especially as newer aircraft, particulary from the past decade, have both designations and names now, even non-US mil types (ie. 787 Dreamliner). In the past few motns there have ben several discussion on WT:AIR that signaled a shift in mood on the topic. So, seeing that the m-d-n system would be better across the board for all aircraft types (where applicable), we proposed the new conventions. SO far there have been no objections at all to changing the system.

I hope that helps to anwer. SOrry it's so long! - BilCat (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize, I hate when people say "TLDR". That rationale makes sense to me, and I suppose I could say that I would support it (not that you need my support, my interest in avaiation-related articles has declined lately). Thanks much for the explanation! bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: have you considered using a bot to clean up the disambig links? There areplenty of bots who do this, one of them has got to be able to go through the "what links here" tool and cleanup after an article is moved. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Bell UH-1 Iroquois

After the recent agreed move, whatever would happen to List of UH-1 Iroquois operators? I'm asking the question to kill my curious cat (just a figure of speech!). Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 01:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

HAL LCH

I requested temporary page protection for the article in question in light of the fact that some users are attemping to add and upload copyrighted images to the article without permission. Vedant (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This is getting old. Do you have HAL's phone number? Perhaps you could call their PR department and ask if they can release some images to public domain? I don't know what else to do here, as we don't have the rights to use those images. - BilCat (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm well the request got denied with the suggestion that if future violations occur, they be reported to WP:AIV. I do have HAL's phone number but not living in India it would be a long distance phone call. I don't think they would mind the images being uploaded but obviously evidence of permission is required. Their marketing e-mail is marketing@hal-india.com as per the contact details on their website. I did fire off an e-mail to their department asking if it was okay to use these photos. If you could send an e-mail as well, they expedite their response.

Also, not sure if you really want to get involved in the thick of things but could you take a look at this article and let me know what you think? It seems a certain user and a few other Chinese nationalists seem intent on altering depictions of certain things. Vedant (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

PS: I'm not too knowledgeable about US or Florida copyright law but I was wondering; since HAL is a public sector organization, are their press releases considered to be public domain? Vedant (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It depends on India's laws. The UK and some of the other Commonwealth countries use Crown Copyrights for most government material/images/etc. It should not be too difficult to find out what the status of public sector photos in India is, if one knew who to ask. HAL's own website should say what the site's copyright status is, so I'll have a look when I can. I'll try to sednd off an eamil to thwm this weekend too. As for the J-15, post a not at WT:AIR, so other editors will know what's going on there. Having more eyes is usually helpful. - BilCat (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As stated here: All photographs and images appearing on this website including the HAL logo and all product names are exclusive property of HAL. The updating of information in this website is done periodically and HAL is at liberty to change any of its products or services at anytime. Before relying on any information contained in this website, you may contact the concerned HAL officer.

These terms and conditions shall be governed by the laws of the Republic of India alone. Only the competent courts in Bangalore, India shall have the jurisdiction. All disputes shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Links to Our Website by other Websites: We do not object to you linking directly to the information that is hosted on this Website and no prior permission is required for the same. However, we would like you to inform us about any links provided to this website so that you can be informed of any changes or updations therein. Also, we do not permit our pages to be loaded into frames on your site. Vedant (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

P-39?

Hi... please explain to me why to write in the lead of the P-39 that it was the first combat aircraft to have a tricycle land gear and an engine behind the seat is not correct? These things are very important, more or less like its use in Urss, dont You thinK? BEST WISHES--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Template :Military of India

I posted my reason for including Operation Woodrose in Template talk:Military of India. Also thanks for having an edit summary, I thought the reverters were just pov editors.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, no problem, and your welcome. - BilCat (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

DR page

Thanks for at least talking to me now. Before when I tried [4] you just deleted my message. CashRules (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I often refuse to answer posts, and delete them, for many reasons. There were questions about your eligibility to edit here, and that's why I removed your posts the first time. Enough time has passed now that if you were banned user, it should have been proven by now. So as show of good faith, I'm talking with you now. Don't over-stay your welcome by bringing it up at every oppurtunity! - BilCat (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I try to show good faith everytime i edit. i'll talk to someone unless it is proven otherwise to not converse with them. well, i'll catch you on the DR page. CashRules (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

North American English

You seem to have momentarily forgotten what a text deletion looks like or what correctly a long-standing fact tag is. Rmhermen (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the illness mentioned above has put you off your best effort. But I will tell you that your actions are highly insulting and suggest that you get a third opinion. Rmhermen (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I HAVE looked at it carefully. You are removing "[[Scots language|Scots]] [[Irish language|Irish]] {{Fact|please give a reliable source for this assertion. How about IRISH?|date=January 2009}}", and replacing it with "[[Hiberno-English|Irish English]]". The original output is "Scots Irish", and your output is "Irish English", so the claim that your are not changing any text is incorrect. Please look at the text carefully, and you'll see that whatever my illness, I AM still correct. I await your apology. I'll remove the vandalism warning, as I missed your earlier note today; that was my fault, as I receinved antoher post after yours, and was not able to check all of my talk page because of connection issues. - BilCat (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Internal Propulsion

An article that you have been involved in editing, Internal Propulsion, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internal Propulsion. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. andy (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

AN I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CashRules (talk • contribs) 22:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

HMS Ocean (L12)

Hi,

Thanks for the adjustments to the new HMS Ocean photo. I'm pretty new to all of this so I think I am doing most of it right, the copyright was the hardest bit! But I also have another photo of HMS Ocean's engine room I think would be good for the article, here: Image:Engine room HMS ocean.JPG would you mind awfully adding it to the page for me?

Thanks again, GB

Henry P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry.pearson (talk • contribs) 22:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it'll fit, but Il try. As to the licenses and copyrights, we should discuss that on the article's talk page, so the other editors can discuss this with us. Copyrights are quite tricky, and since it's a legal status, we have to get them correct. We should be able to help you out on those. - BilCat (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just left a message on the page discussion, I think we can move to that now! I'm pretty sure I got the crown copyright stuff correct but your right always for a second pair of eyes!Henry.pearson (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Please don't template me. The correct name for this organization is the Womens Air Service Pilots. There is no discussion on the talk page.Malke2010 18:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The move warning is not inappropriate. You were participating in a discussion on the issue here, in which there is no clear consensus to move it at this time. - BilCat (talk) 3:02 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Time to disengage?

Per my earlier comments about them ropes, I'm disengaging as of now, have fun cos' one of them whale needs my urgent attention, right now. Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 20:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, have fun with the Whalejet! However, this dude is not disengaging at all, but is now makinga lsit of so-called hounding on his talk page. Me thinks it's time for him to meet ANI! - BilCat (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Look above that list and you'll see even more, apparently he is tightening his own noose whether we like it or not. Anyway, it is his life and if he wants to consume himself by doing all that silly behaviour, who are we to say that he is not entitled to do so? Toodles~! (PS:Couldn't help replying before I go off... =P) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 20:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

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. The discussion is about the topic Continued Battle and Pointy edits: Malke 2010. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Rats, I was just about to inform Bill~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 20:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Per ANI discussion outcome, Malke has been blocked for 1 month. Thought you should know this. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Notes and references

Hello BilCat,

Firstly my apologies for the revert, I should have really discussed it with you first as of course. I will self administer an upper cut immediately... Anyway thanks for the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content, but for the life of me though I can't quit see anything which talks about notes or footnotes etc. I just see a rather generic references section. Am I missing something? Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 08:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed it's not there either! Anyway, the pattern you saw is used on thousands of aircraft and related articles. It is allowed by a MOS somewhere, as I just read it a couple of weeks ago, but, of course!, I can't remember where. I'll keep looking, and I'll mention it to another editor who regularly deals with citation issues. - BilCat (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I will hold off on making such changes for aircraft articles. This aspect of wiki is a little frustrating (at least to me) as I think there really should be uniformity in such issues, but alas! Anyway take it easy. Anotherclown (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoops

Hai, sorry about the edit i made the other day. I needed a place to keep a link and i didn't think i'd saved the page =^.^"= —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpAM CAN (talk • contribs) 09:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. - BilCat (talk) 10:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Frigate image

I think it's probably for the best that you took the image down from the frigate article. There appears to be one or two users who insist the image be changed, but they insist it be changed to that of an Indian frigate without any other reason that it being Indian. If the image is going to be changed it should be changed for good reason, such as it being a more relevant or notable image. I suggested a different image but they rejected it, the problem being it wasn't Indian or Asian or something along those lines according to what they said. I told them that shouldn't matter but they wouldn't hear of it. Bcs09 changed the image without consensus but neither will stick to Bold, Revert, Discuss. It's not surprising though, both seem to contribute only Indian nationalism and regularly get involved in edit wars with editors who get in their way. Don't get me wrong, I welcome the image being changed, if it's for the right reasons, such as being more notable, but not if it's just for nationalistic POV. 88.106.101.204 (talk) 04:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This is honestly garbage. There is a clearly a pattern going on here. For one, said IP-hopping user has a history of failing to assume good faith and also appears to be removing images related to India from a myriad of Wikipedia articles. Please see this, this, and this and this. His accusation that my account exists to propagate Indian nationalism is a) baseless and b) very similar to the argument User:Yattum tried to accuse me of on this article. It's only when I reported the matter to ANI and he received a 24 hour block for violating 3RR did he cease. It's also particularly interesting that on pages such as London, edits made by Yattum and an IP from the 88.106.xxx.xxx range are often only minutes apart from each other. Based on the above, I find it likely that 88.106.xxx.xxx and Yattum are one in the same and Yattum is just trying to hide behind the anonymity afforded by the internet. This user sounds like a broken record and an idiot by continuously accusing me of Indian nationalism because I "edit-warred" with Ao333 and NoBiasPlease... I'll mull on taking it to SPI but given the fact that no one has acted on Ao333, I'll wait till I have something more solid. Vedant (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Both images are already in the gallery section. I'd suggest putting both images in the text section, but I susspect there would be an argument of which one should come first! Take it from someone whose prone to argue over anything himself: This isn't an issue worth arguing about. I understand it's not really about the image, but then it is. WP:DNFT is good advice, hard to follow sometimes. - BilCat (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention of getting into a fight with a troll (which it looks like what this is degenerating into). My intention is mainly to ensure the integrity of an article by not allowing random users to alter images because they may have prejudicial attitudes towards a certain country. Whenever I edit an article, I try and present as diverse a picture as possible. Regardless, I appreciate your advice on the matter and for the most part agree with you that this is a rather trivial thing to contest but I just don't want to set a precedent. I've also left a note at WikiProject Ships and we'll see where this goes from there. Vedant (talk) 06:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Also to clarify, I really don't care which image comes first or whether the Shivalik class should be shown in the article, my only issue is with not setting a precedent for POV-pushing anons to rush full speed ahead with the vandalomatic-3000. Vedant (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand your points, but alot of these people have short attention spans. It's sometime best to leave it alone, and come back a few months later to fix it. (The only exception is with copyrighted info, or other blatant violations of policies such as BLP.) I watch most of the airliner articles, and every so often, photos of certain airlines are removed, and are replaced both those of airliners from "rival" nations. The usual ones are Israel/Arab countries (usually the latter are the culprits), and India/Pakistan (by both sides, but esp. pro-Pakistan). It's just one of the many joys of Open Editing! Hopefully WPSHIPS can help out. - BilCat (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well seems like someone else has posted in the talk page. Anyways, I'll keep an eye on the situation and see how it progresses. Open-editing is fun but no one has supposedly voiced objection to my "Indian nationalism" edits on system call (which BTW I really would like to revamp). Vedant (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Korean Air

I would really like to bring said article up to date. For one, it seems like no one pays any attention to it and for the most part, it's just a collection of loosely joined facts that doesn't really say much about the airline. The only thing I like in said article is the fleet section which for the most part presents an accurate fleet size. That being said, I was JW if you knew of any reliable sources that could help in expanding this article (other than say the official website). Thanks, Vedant (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I really don't know that much about airlines, especially finding reliable sources. You might try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines, where there are several good editors there who ought to be able to give some good advice. - BilCat (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)