User talk:BilCat/archive 15

T-1000

It seems that the pov editor T-1000 is continually causing trouble again. He's trying to get people on the Republic of China talk page to support him despite the fact that he knows very well that he is violating the official Wikipedia policy on naming conventions that "Republic of China must treated as a sovereign state equal to the People's Republic of China". There seems to be a group of pro-communist China sympathizers, along with T-1000 that keep POV pushing in favor of degrading the status of the Republic of China (Taiwan) which they know very well is indeed in violation of official Wikipedia policy. But they keep pushing pro-communist China pov. If necessary, I think other administrators should be notified in the event they try mass pov edits. Because it seems obvious they are not concerned with following official Wikipedia policy.

Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.98 (talk)

I'd really suggest that you take it up at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). I've got more than enough on my plate watching the arcraft articles. - BilCat (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Planned article

Hi Bill, I've started working on a Consolidated B-24 Liberator in Australian service article at User:Nick-D/Drafts3. Do you know of any other articles about national uses of aircraft types I could model this on? cheers, Nick-D (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Nick, to my knowledge, we have no articles stritly about national uses of aircraft types. What we normally do is either spin off a large section of an aircraft article, usually "Operational History" or "Variants", that cover all the variants of a type, and all the users. The other way is to spin off a Variant article, which is an entire aircraft article on its own, but devoted to one to a few specific variants. The F-111C sandbox we're "working" on is such a variant article. I don't know of a reason to object to an article such as the one your proposing other than the "We don't do it that way" argument.

As to the article, it's history, not an aircraft article. I'd just follow the usual MILHIST format for writing an article on military operations, though of corse this is not about one operation in particular, but a series of missions. - BilCat (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks Bill (and thanks for the reminder about the F-111C article!). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

If the RAAF gave the B-24s their own designation, maybe you could use that in the article's name instead, like the UK's Consolidated Liberator I. Just a thought. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The RAAF seems to have used US designations (the initial RAAF aircraft were worn out Fifth Air Force B-24s and the remainder mainly new B-24Js). cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Not vandalism

The reverts I made to The Money Maze were done because of the unencyclopedic edits made to the page by User:Daniel_Benfield. I must ask you to read the edits you restored. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you need to leave more helpful edit summaries that "Rollbaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!" As User:Daniel_Benfield appears to be an editoer in good standing, I'm going to let his edits stand. I'd also suggest you take up what ever issues you have with his edits on the article's talk page, and reach a consensus with the other editors over which version should be used. - BilCat (talk) 07:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Flag icons

Hi there; I noticed you've commented at Ohconfucius's page about the removal of flag icons. I must say that I'm guilty of removing them on occasion too. The reasons? First, they are decorative, whereas infoboxes are for information. Second, their colours often don't go very well with the image immediately above. Third, some flags are very very similar—for example, the Australian and New Zealand flags, which I've seen used side by side without spelling out the country, and it's almost impossible to tell the difference. Fifth, they are redundant where the country-name is provided; and sixth, probably among the most important points, they take up extra space in a space-limited location. Thanks. Tony (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the Aircraft Project uses flags by consensus in the Operators sections of aircraft articles. Btw, that is the ONLY place where we use flags. We don't use them in Infoboxes, despite the recent campaign of ROC/TW activist(s) on the AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo to use flags in the infobox. Perhaps this goes against "global consensus", I don't know. SInce most guidelines on WP seem to be written by the AWB coders, not by actual consensus, it's often hard to tell! - BilCat (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

The June 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) 18:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BilCat. You have new messages at MilborneOne's talk page.
Message added 22:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I noticed, but I'm afraid were in for a game of Whac-A-Mole! But at least that should lead to a long-term block/ban with revert-on-site privileges. Anyway, it should be interesting to see what "identities" he/she resurfaces as. Perhaps an Al-queida memeber, a Rastafarian, an Argentine political prisoner, a South-Seas native, a dictator from Africa, or a resident of the Russian Steppes? Ought to be fun! - BilCat (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes it is like swatting flies when there are clearly an infinite number of flies! - Ahunt (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• And sometimes, it pays to take the horse out of the equation... much like the intimate relationship between horses and horse gnats, eh? =P --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 03:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind

Saw the link on BB's page and had to contribute :). Soxwon (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The more the merrier! - BilCat (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Am I reaching at this point? Soxwon (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to Mutiny on the Bounty Board? The others seem fine, but that one eluded me. - BilCat (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:BOUNTY Soxwon (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

...I just counted out of curiousity, I have 22 submissions out of 43 o_o. I think I need a hobby... Soxwon (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

22 submissions? I think is your new hobby! - BilCat (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Scary ain't it Soxwon (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fun page

Hello BilCat. Thanks for starting your "The World according to WP". All to often the "Have Fun" part of Wikipedia seems to get swamped by too much wikidrama. As to my recent song entry I could not decide whether to do just the title "Help!" or the first line of the song or the last line. I think you helped to make it clear what song is being referred to so thanks for that too. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 12:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm enjoying your new page too! - Ahunt (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Unconfirmed report coming through

Bill, the Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master has been selected as the new jet trainer for Republic of Singapore Air Force, most likely to replace the last few A-4SU Super Skyhawks currently in France. Still waiting for the press release in order to add in the citations. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 04:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, cool. Btw, I just read a rport a couple weeks ago on the M-346 being apossivle entrnt for the USAF's T-38 replacement compitition. It mentioned that the M-346's engine, the Honeywell/ITEC F124, is built in Taiwan, where the F-CK-1's F125 engine is also built. I wonder if the regional building of the engine had any sway in the RSAF's selection of the M-346. - BilCat (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Its possible but I don't think so, and I did heard that the Italians are offering a very good offer to Singapore, since the RSAF was a former operator of the S.211 before. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 05:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's a published "rumor" from UPI. - BilCat (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Better than to keep them hoping, right? =P --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 05:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Apparently, the deal became very clear when ST Aerospace announced that it was teaming up with Alenia Aermacchi and Boeing in the M-346 bid to offer a training and maintenance package to the RSAF, much like what Lockheed Martin is doing right now in RAAF Pearce - Perth, Australia with those nineteen Pilatus PC-21. Anyhow, I believe that the "KAI" T-50 is now officially "KIA", I mean just take a look at the amount of defense reports out there talking about it, they always misspelled KAI as KIA, no wonder it got killed~! =P --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Pifeedback

Could you give your opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pifeedback.com?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Wonderful...

And the anonymous troll strikes again here. If he reverts it again, I'm going to leave it as is and wait until the SPI case turns up corroborating information. I'm also going to post a note on WT:AIR. Vedant (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The irony in his claim that "the admins are against me" is kind of pathetic and speaks of desperation. Slim Virgin already blocked one of the IPs but because he's a DSL user and his IP changes frequently, only a range block or semi-protection of his "editing-favourites" would do the trick. Vedant (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The warning you gave me

I did provide a reason in the talk page, the entry was redundant because someone had re-written the section but forgot to delete the old section which they had edited. The old section referred to a cancelled military vehicle which had already been discussed and linked to on the page. In the future please actually check to see if there is a reason being given on the talk page instead of deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.87.236 (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I had already started writing the warning before you posted the note on the talk page, and I had no way of knowing you were posting a note. It was just an unexplained (at the time) deletion, which is what the warning was for. Please use edit summaries such as "See talk page" in the future. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Federations

Hey. You reverted a contribution for the article Federation saying it was "better covered eslewhere". I agree, but I just think that being better covered elsewhere doesn't mean the information is not relevant for that article. It was a good explanation of why systems that can be seen as federations are not quite so. What do you think? Regards. Gvogas (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I rhink you don't have a clue what you're doing, but who cares? This is only WP, it's not like anyone in the real world takes us seriously. - BilCat (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

South African Air Force

Thanks for catching my mistake - I'll put the blame on finger trouble. Roger (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. - BilCat (talk) 11:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Avio

Hello Bill, the Avio page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avio) I've been working on received an Advert sign from you. Since I am quite new here, could you specify what parts of the article need revision and what steps I should take to get rid of the sign? Estergo (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Bombardier Dash 8

Good morning Bill: Thanks for reviewing and revising that! - Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem I meant to put "Trimmed unneeded info" in the edit sommary, but my computer decided I was done before I could write it! The rest looks OK, provided a source can be found, of course. - BilCat (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! - Ahunt (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Project on Government Oversight

Cracked the whip (see Talk), did cleanup and added a balancing section about POGO's 1998 money goofup. Your opinion/contributions welcome. --Lexein (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II global partner's remorse?!

With the possible exception of Canada, but even there the Opposition parties are railing ("kvetching") against the recent announcement of the purchase of 65 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning IIs, all the global partners have at one point or another expressed reservations about the JSF project and their involvement as "partners". Some of the invisible partners include Israel which maintains a three-person office to monitor JSF developments. As to the extent of "sticker shock" and "buyer's remorse", there is a litany of oped pieces from every partner nation decrying the JSF program and their country's involvement as a stake holder. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC).

RS. - BilCat (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Republic XF-84H Thunderscreech

Copyedit from the Republic XF-84H Thunderscreech talk page: "As to writing style, for a hoot, I took one paragraph from the article that I had exclusively written and submitted it to a writing style check. The analysis indicated that the style matched precisely that of: David Foster Wallace (February 21, 1962 – September 12, 2008) a professor at Pomona College in Claremont, California, noted as an American author of novels, essays and short stories. He was widely known for his 1996 novel Infinite Jest, which Time included in its All-Time 100 Greatest Novels list (covering the period 1923–2006). So, you can see that writing style can be entirely arbitrary and capricious. I did the same for some of the other notables on this page and got matches of writing style to "Ursula K. Le Guin", "Dan Brown", "Stephen King", "Kurt Vonnegut" and "James Joyce." Now, for the fun: match up: Silverchemist, Mark Sublette, BilCat, AussieLegend and Binksternet to their writing styles! FWiW, the matches are scrambled, guess your style. Bzuk (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC).

Just wondering

Not that I'm pretending to understand Chinese script but I was kind of curious as to why you reverted the anon's edits on Chengdu J-10 and Shenyang J-11. Was it merely on the basis of adherence to WP policy (the English WP should contain English script) or was objectionable content added? Vedant (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not in the WP:AIR/PC page content guidelines, but the custom in the project has been to only use Latin letters. The user changed a number of articles, including some Russian and a Japanese fighters. On most cases, he also added the manufacturs name in both languages, which not recommended except in rare cases where only a model number (with no letters) is used, such as Boeing 707, etc. I'll probably be bringing this up at WZP:Air to get the guidelines clarified. - BilCat (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to it, though, if we do label some aircraft then convention would hold that everything needs to be renamed which is a fairly tedious task. Vedant (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Flying wing

Hi

You just reverted my edits with the comment "WP articles aren't reliable sources, especially when unreferenced or poorly referenced"

I dod not state that they were reliable sources, I said "Removed cn tags - there are no notes to say what info the editor was after being refd - also all point to wiki articles"

As there is nothing to say why they were there it seems pretty impossible to cite something which is unclear as to why they were put in. The aircraft mentioned all existed and the cites are over a year old.

In your opinion exactly what is being required to be referenced ?

Chaosdruid (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I also noticed that the two above also do not seem to have any proper referencing in their articles either so I have taggeed them as well. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Fact tags don't need reasons explained - they are placed when there are no reliable sources present to prove the assertions made, in this case existence and veracity. In lists, citations usually aren't needed if the item has its own article with sufficient sourcing, or if an article covering the item has a source about that item. It's useless to point to a wiki article if the article doesn't even mention the aircraft, much less have reliable sources for it, as in the case of the Horton entry. - BilCat (talk) 08:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm - that is strange, are you sure you mean the Horton ref? The ref I used for the Horton I & II are to US government documents. Chaosdruid (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Are those the ones you added later? I don't think they were there before, which is the article state I was referring to. - BilCat (talk) 12:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah - I replaced a cn with a ref on the Hortons I & II (and replaced the Bat glider with a slightly later and more wingy one with refs) Chaosdruid (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Boeing 747SP

Bill, I hope you could help me locate a source for Singapore Airlines being an ex-operator of the Boeing 747SP, this is so I can add it into the article page. IIRC, SQ used to operate them in the combi-config and I used to walk by them a couple of times when they (together with the B742 and B743s) were parked on the tarmac at Changi in 1999 pending a new owner. Many thanks, best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 06:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've got a book on airliners published in 1987 that lists aircraft used by ailrines in that time frame. If Singapore Airlines has the SPs in service then, it ought to be there. I'll try to check it later today when I have access to the pile of books laying on my floor my library. - BilCat (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Nothing there, sorry. - BilCat (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The 747sp.com site does not list Singapore Airlines as an operator, but the list could be incomplete or incorrect. I have 2-3 747 books. One of them should list most or all of the 747SP operators. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks guys, I've been looking around too and on my end at SIAEC, I got in touch with someone in-charge of company archive but guess what... toopid bureaucratic red tape walls for me to scale again~! As if the request by me to take a photo of the HQ building was not enough a big embarrassment for me already... yeah, they shot me down in flames over that simple request saying they would get a professional guy to do it instead. *sheesh* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 00:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• SA did not order any SPs directly from Boeing according to this orders page. The main operators mentioned in my 2 books are Pan Am, South African Airways, Iran Air, Syrian Air, and United Air, plus some were leased to others. In the 1990s many were converted to VIP transports for Iraq, UAE, Saudi and other nations. No mention of SA though. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Change of Photo

Hi Bill you seem to be the guy to go to here concerning Aviation article edits. I would like your input concerning article Jet Fighter I remover a pic of a HAL Tejas, that didn't fit the time line, nor seemed to be an important aircraft worth mentioning. I would appreciate any suggestions, in my approach to the matter, and construction criticism is welcome. Info on edit: 06:05, 22 July 2010 (diff | hist) Fighter aircraft Thank you Viper 265 (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Before you respond Bill, my sock meter is going off the charts here.Vedant (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Viper, you're best discussing that on the article's talk page, as the removal of the Tejas pic has been an issue before. You might have gotten my support until the "nor seemed to be an important aircraft worth mentioning" part, where you've revealed your own bias. Please move on. - BilCat (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Books

Bill, do you like the Strike from the Sea book you have listed on your user page? Do you have any ones you have gotten recently that you recommend? I'm re-reading the Harrier II, Validating V/STOL book now, btw. On your F-35 comments, I generally agree. The US services will have to buy some of all 3 variants, but one will probably not be successful (probably C or maybe B model). The AF will want an F-22-like air superiority fighter several years down the road too. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good book. It has lots of info from late--WWII to the present day, including on the A-12 and F/A-18E/F. If I remember correctly. the book also mentions how Robert McNamara stopped the practice of the services procuring and approving their own aircraft, placing it under the DOD. And costs have skyrocketed ever since! Too much oversight can be as bad, if not worse, than no oversight. You know, I'd love to see a per-unit cost for the KC-X once its purchased that includes all the money spent on the tanker programs since 2001. I have a feeling the per-unit prices for the KC-767 lease deal that was supposed to be so awful will pale in comparison! And we'd have had new tankers in service by now too. I' think I'm joining the Tea party! - BilCat (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. They renegotiated the tanker deal into a 80/20 buy/lease deal before it was canceled. Surely the costs were less with that too. There has been a lot of requirement creep over the years. The KC-X tanker is supposed be a commercially derived aircraft and has a lot of requirements. The DoD is starting an efficiency initiative with industry. Reducing the number of requirements would do a lot for that. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism at Canadian Forces

I was surprised to see this talk page edit rolled back as vandalism. It's not entirely helpful, offering information without a source, but doesn't it seem to be made in good faith? -Joshuapaquin (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Canada's Navy is the third largest in the world? No, not at all, or the person is a complete idiot. I chose vandalism. - BilCat (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I re-read it, and it said "had", not "has". I'm going to blame it on my 5-year-old glasses. I go to get a new prescription for them next week. - BilCat (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This was probably the case back in World War II (I'm pretty sure a few of my old history textbooks will affirm this.) Vedant (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

SAR 21

• Bill, could you take a look at SAR 21, Talk:SAR 21 and User talk:AK76~? Here's another classic case of newbie biting the oldie... --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 21:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Not today. I just returend from the dentist to have a broken tooth fixed, so I'm not up for doing much now. Also, small arms are out of my are of intense interest (meaning I know nothing about them). You might try Jeff (Fnlayson), as he edits those pages quite a bit. - BilCat (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Best wishes

Hi Bill, I just saw this. I hope that you have a quick recovery. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add my wishes, too for a fast recovery! - Ahunt (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hope your tooth/teeth are better soon. -fnlayson (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all. Much appreciated. The tooth is doing better, but is still a little sore. - BilCat (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

North American F-86 Sabre

Sorry I had to revert back to your earlier version, apart from some good-faith edits by the IP it is just to difficult to clear out the bad edits that have also been made! MilborneOne (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem! I gave him an informal warning for his condescending edit summaries, especially this one! He seems new, but it doesn't need to continue. - BilCat (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

X-15 inadvertant spam

BilCat, My apologies for the inadvertent spam, & thanks for the alert & offer of help. I should have asked about it yesterday, but RL intervened before I could. I have tried deleting the text before saving, using the sandbox to edit, writing in Gedit & copy-pasting, etc, with no effect. I have no idea what's happening. I have looked at my prefs, & can see nothing obvious that would make this happen. (I notice that this is partly boxed, which I have not formatted, as can be seen from the edit page of this txt. Is this a page-size function?) Would mis-set 'scripts' cause these aberrations? I am in conversation with BilCat to try & sort it. If anyone else has a clue, please let me know via my talk-page. Thanks in advance. Firefox 3.6.7, Linux Mint 9. Dick Holman 15:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no clue either, but I'll try to help you find out. - BilCat (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Update- I use WikiTweak, & it has been leaving the QuickiWiki spam on my edits. Turned off now. Dick Holman. User:Archolman 22:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Wikipedia scandal!

I know that Canada has a lower tolerance of political scandals than Australia and the US (what would be routine pork barreling in Australia brought down a Canadian cabinet minister a couple of years ago), but this is rather over-blown! A single public servant messing around with Wikipedia is embarrassing for them and their employer, but hardly news (I doubt it's even a sackable offence). There was a similar 'scandal' here in Australia a few years ago when WikiScanner was used to detect federal public servants making what appeared to be politically-motivated edits. When the excitement died down it turned out that it was a few individual public servants (of whom there are something like 150,000) editing during their lunch breaks. Nick-D (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Atlanta population update

One is for 2009 the other is for August 2010, most wikipedia articles are set with the census estimates, There not conflicting one is just more current. toneythegreat (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you'd be right, it it were a census estimete. It isn't. (Assuming we're talking about the same thing - see that Atlanta talk page to find out.) - BilCat (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

OK I see but BilCat can you take another look at the Atlanta talk page I have a response to that. toneythegreat (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Injured bird

As if that overreacting NKP's revoking is not enough, I'm having my hands full right now with that B772... major problem, if I might add, not to mention our national day is today – 9th Aug, we're short of staff again. Remind me also to thank them pilot for their error! *sheesh* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 18:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The bird's a lot more important than WP! We'll get it all sorted out here later. - BilCat (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• I know... but the shops won't open until the 10th and my boss is already chewing me up over the damned messed-up wirings after the Beijing mess! Oh the joy of being a SLAME... =( --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 18:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Kudos for your prompt reverts of recent vandalism (e.g. "Georgia" article). I may disagree with you on almost every political and social issue (per your user page), but I know you're a credit to Wikipedia. Many thanks!Mason.Jones (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Aleknagik

Re your message "What's an "Aleknagik", and whose likely to be looking for the crash under that name? Another option might be Ted Stevens crash, as people might actually look for that." on the 2010 Alaska plane crash talk page - The plane crashed near Aleknagik, Alaska. Also posted this on the talk page but its a bit crazy on there ATM. I have redirected both "2010 Aleknagik plane crash" and "Ted Stevens crash" to the current article location (2010 Alaska Turbo Otter crash). Mauler90 _talk 21:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought that's what it was. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Put a sock there...

The guy you and FN just dealt with earlier, he has been brought to ANI (WP:ANI#Worth keeping an eye on) by the Sysop John, methinks his tragedy will end very soon. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™} 05:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed so, he is now sleeping with the fishes~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™} 06:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No surprise there! I trust my instincts on things like this, and I'm usually right. Perhaps they enjoy being caught, because it's frightening easy to spot them! Take care. - BilCat (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

EADS KC-45

Didn't think it neede discussion as Northrop Grumman have had nothing to do with the KC-45 for at least a year now!!!Petebutt (talk) 07:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You might have known if you'd bothered to read the talk page first. And NG pulled out in March 2010. March to August isn't a year, at least not in the US. Since the article is primarily about a US topic, we follow US timekeeping rules. - BilCat (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a section on the article's talk page for further discussion if needed. I'm for "EADS KC-30". -fnlayson (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced; Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy	Editorial Opportunities for new military history articles
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

TAI Hurkus

I see you gave User:Tolgagurcan a warning. I stopped reverting for that specific reason, as I didn't want to be warned, especially after the recent report on AN/I regarding my reverts. The problem is that the user keeps removing content from TAI Hürkuş and Talk:TAI Hürkuş without explaining why. - Donald Duck (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he did attempt explain why, with "HURKUS IS A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PROGRAM NOT AN AIRCRAFT YET; SO STOP CONVERTING IT TO A/C TEMPLATE", but it's not a valid reason. He doesn't understand that "aircraft" articles are about planes in all stages of development from early concept to post-retirement, including those that never progressed beyond any given stage. - BilCat (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Bill: Thanks for jumping in on this article. As you saw in the page history, I did a bunch of trying to fix it up (twice due to a wholesale reversion). But had to go out for a bit. I was glad that you and the regular project editors were able to make some progress there, although the editor in question did vandalize the list of new articles (I fixed it) and has threatened to delete the article when he is unblocked. - Ahunt (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I think the user was trying to say he would remove the article in order to remove the problems it was causing. It's been addressed by a reviewing admin. - BilCat (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you are watching User talk:Tolgagurcan as the unblock conversation unfolds there. - Ahunt (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup! I've resoponded, so we'll see what happens. - BilCat (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• User has retired, i.e. taking ball and going home. ;) -fnlayson (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, WP has its own supply of gameballs. Frankly, given that he didn't play well with others, and showed no sign of an ability to listen and learn, he won't be missed. I don't know if Turkish was his native language, but English certainly isn't, and is a major fctor in his inability to "play well" here. Meanwhile, the Turkish language article, tr:Hürkuş Eğitim Uçağı, is a mess, and lacks any sources at all. It's all very interesting! - BilCat (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't work on Wikipedia in languages I don't read and write and I wish others would embrace the same policy! - Ahunt (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've made a few edits on the German wiki, and a few others, mostly adding interwiki links, but occasionally fixing a few obvios errors, usually formatting, or adding images. As far as ENglish WP goes, it is the largest WP by far, and that attracts a lot of people. Meanwhile, I've noticed scores of interwiki links to the Indonesian language WP being added to aircraft and aeroengine articles, so it's good to see some WP making an effort to expand aircraft coverage in their own language. The Vietnamese language WP had a similar drive a couple of years ago, and at a cursory glance, they seem very good. Would that the Spanish WP had similar quality articles! Most of the spanish-speaking editors seem to prefer to edit on EN WP! (There are some good ones though, such as User:Jor70, but he is one of the few exceptions. He beat me by 2 minutes in adding new info to the C-1 Trader page today!) - BilCat (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I was tracking those Indonesian additions, it looks like someone was taking the English articles and templates and translating them into Indonesian, which is a "fair-game" way to expand other languages. - 18:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Definitely is fair, and smart too, though I haven't checked to see if they give licensing credit to the English versions on the talk page. Also, another reason that the non-English-fluent users comes here is that their own WPs have banned them, such as ole Stephi and his friend, who were banned on the Itialian WP! I'd love to see an automatic global ban instituted, or at least made an option to pursue global bans, for problem users such as those two. - BilCat (talk)

<delurk>I think we loose some potentially good editors because they dont understand wiki or English, perhaps we need to look at how we deal with these new editors. Although if they throw the toys out and start reverting, shouting and blanking it may not be worth the effort. MilborneOne (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point, though in this case, as you said, it wasn't worth any effort. Perhaps we need to collect a list of WP:AIR members (and WPMILHIST/WPSHIPS also) who are fluent in other languages, and would be willing to serve as "ambassadors" to new members who speak their languages, and who can "interpret" when necessary. As I mentioned, Jor70 is fluent in Spanish and English. As for German, we have Cobatfor and Denniss who are fluent German speakers, and Nimbus is conversant in German at some level. Dave speaks Cantonese, I believe, and can read Mandarin at some level. Is it worth considering? They wouldn't necessarily have to be WP:AIR memebers, just people willing to step in and help out when there are communication difficulties. MILHIST might be the best project to lead such an affort, as they have a larger membership than WPAIR or WPSHIPS. - BilCat (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I like that idea of translators or ambassadors, it has to work better than some of what we have seen. User:EH101 is Italian, too. - Ahunt (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that you'll enjoy this

http://failblog.org/2010/08/17/epic-fail-photos-trilingual-fail/ Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Had to wade pretty deep into the comments to find this: "This is not a mistake. This is in Quito Ecuador in front of a rafting company owned by an Australian. He made the sign as a joke because the Australian English sounds so different from other English." Btw, it's funny to read the dueling Australian claims about what is or isn't Australian. A couple of them were real hoots! - BilCat (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hello thanks for helping with archiving the License to Kill discussions, I apologize I did not notice the discussions dates. That heading concern aka Title concern, Whitmore 8621 changed plot to Story on THe Living Daylights as well but I changed it to Plot. Kennedy, 007--Kennedy, 007 (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help. - BilCat (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

F4U Corsair lead photo

Hi, I'm not sure but maybe it was you who once complained about me putting a new lead photo in an airplane article... be that as it may, how about this photo File:AU-1 Corsair in flight 1952.jpg for the F4U article? Thanks and best wishes for your health Cobatfor (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't remember that! More than likely, it was a specific issue with the photo itself, perhaps the image's quality. You add many great photos to aircraft articles, especially r=are ones, and I think I have told you that before. The photo of the AU-1 is a good one, but just a bit faded perhapsfor the Lead. The current Lead photo isn't vintage, but it is a clearer shot. That said, I'd have no issue with it being in the Lead, but as it is an AU-1, some other might object on the grounds that it's not "representative" of the F4U. However, the differences aren't visible in the photo, as there were mainly structural and the engine having no high altitude supercharger, but I've no issue with that. Either way, the photo is a good one for the article, as I don't think we have one of the AU-1 variant. - BilCat (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Done! Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

AFL page

I was just having a look up on the AFL talk page, due to an interesting cyber war between a couple of people. I'd like to thank you for showing an inate amount of professionalism in regards to the list order. Hopefully that should stop the unnecessary arguing. Once again; thank you. WikiNerd91 9:31, 5 September, 2010 (ACST)

Oh, thank you! The page doesn't have a lot of regular users, so it's a bit difficult to for a lasting consensus. If you support my changes, please say so on the talk page so we have soe consensus to point to in future discussions. Thanks again! - BilCat (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

D H Hornet

Same old story, great minds and all that. Right now I am looking to add more images of the Hornet; to do that I am hoping to get permission from the owners of this site to use some of the photos from here. With any luck...Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I read this, I found four (small, but copyright free) Sea Hornet photos at the Australian War memorial page [1] that might interest you. I also posted this with Minorhistorian. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

note

88.104.92.70 is in Light Current's usual range. Had you left his ironic comment there, I was going to reply that his continued reappearance is what keeps me motivated here. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You can always restore them! Would you rather I not delete anything that's problaby from him at all? Anyway, his comments were hilarious - kind of like an ugly person yelling at someone that they look bad because they didn't comb their hair! - BilCat (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you can delete vandalism if you see it. I appreciate you watching out for me. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't vandalism?? :) I don't quite understand how this moron has enough time to waste following one person around on WP, other than he/she/it is in love with you! Hate usually wears out by now. - BilCat (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• As Craig Ferguson would say, it has the proper amount of suction~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185♪♫™} 03:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Midwest Airlines

Hi, I would to know, how rightly write hub in Airlines templates - 'Airport' and hub city near name, or add hub city in airport name? For examples:

• It's my version, or
• version of User:ZHoover123 - Midwest Airlines

Thank u. EGroup (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't generally deal with airlines, but I'll try to take a look later. You might get a quicker response at WT:AIRLINES. - BilCat (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Trying to keep a grip, but...

This latest contretemps is bizarre to say the least, I know I can be a curmugeon, but this is ridiculous, as everything is a personal jibe. FWiW, any suggestions? Bzuk (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

See dispute where an admin is being put to the coals. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

I'll try to stay on Calvary when the cavalry arrives. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

US state

Thanks for your defense in the discussion of courts on this article. The beauty was that I read your defense before I responded, which was a darn good thing! Saved a lot of, uh, back-and-forth which would have, at best, been annoying to other editors. We won't go into the "at worst" scenario! Thanks to you!

And you were correct, of course. It was intended as an good-faith question/suggestion. So much for good intentions! Whew!  :) Student7 (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I think he said what he said with good intentions, but he was fearing the worst, and in doing that he didn't show good faith to you. I've dealt with plenty of incompentents of WP, and I'm sure you have too. Do it long enough,a nd sometimes you begin to see them where they aren't! I'm glad to have been of service, and you have made my day! After dealing with a specific intractable person on WP all weekend, it's niocve to actually do some good! (See my own rant [ here] that I just wrote, which may not accomplish as much! Had I read the previous poster's comments before pressing save, I may not have responded at all.) - BilCat (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey!

Cool down a bit! Take a short wikibreak if you have to, then come back fighting fit. Please don't post another impersonation of MickMacNee again, or you will be facing a block for personal attacks. As I'm sure you've realised, we need to keep a dignified restraint ourselves when dealing with problematic editors. Mjroots (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

'Allo 'Allo!

• Dave speaking with zee phony French accent... Hello Bill, are you there? Bill? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hope to see you back soon, Bill! - Ahunt (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants	Editorial In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Chimes Aviation Academy

Bill: I saw your note on Michael's page on this subject. I have tagged the article for CSD as a copyright infringement. It could also be tagged as spam and as a recreation of a previously deleted page, too! Hopefully an admin will delete it forthwith! - Ahunt (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know I changed the CSD to G4 instead. - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

and as you can tell by the redlink above it has been deleted again. It is on my watchlist for the next time it gets created. - Ahunt (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Beriev Be-200

Good [any]ning. If you want to translate the plane name, it's Бе-200, not Бериев Бе-200. Otherwise, if you want to translate the article name, it's again the same, just see interwiki. (To be honest, sometimes Бериев Бе-200 occurs, but it's wrong back translation from English). Longbowman (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No. The article's title in the article is "Beriev Be-200" - we should transliterate all ot it, or none of it. "Altair" ought to be transliterated too, but I don't write Cyrillic characters, so I can't add it. The Russian WP can follow Russian language conventions, but this is not the Russian language WP. We're not bound by their restrictions. - BilCat (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Metrodome

"Consider myself warned"? Who are you, the move police? Ever heard of WP:BOLD? – PeeJay 07:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

But who are you to be handing out "warnings"? I hadn't seen the move discussion, and if you read the lead of the article you would agree with me that the move makes sense. – PeeJay 08:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Bil is in the right here. I've added a comment to PJ's talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Have a break, have a Kit Kat~!

• Bill, you seriously need to go for a break to cure your addiction, per this latest booboo of yours. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Insomnia. Kit-Kat doesn't help that! - BilCat (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Bill, then I'd suggest that you'd better abstain from sex, the internet, junk food (that includes Chinese take-outs!) or any caffeine laced drink/food for the next 7 days (but not necessarily in that order), doctor's order from Bugs. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Your views

I see that you have requested an apology for my view of your views. Please understand that I would very much like to give you an apology, but that I cannot. Your views are your own, and a number of them propagate hatred and animosity. It is your right to present them as you see fit, and having done so you must understand that you place yourself in the default position of offending many users. Thusly, other users have the right to point out the hatred and animosity of such views. That is not censorship, but rather disagreement. If you were forced to remove the userboxes, that would be censorship. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Addendum-Mil1 pointed out that you had removed the content that I found offensive. Thank you for doing this. I do have great respect for your work as an editor here, and don't want that to be lost in a personality dispute. I think we can agree to disagree on the past, and moving forward agree to work together. 16:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not that you chose to object to my views, but tht you brought them up in a unrelated discussion as a slam on my ability to edit neutrally. You allowed your own "hatred" and ointolerance, which you accuse me of, to color your interaction with me, and that is what I ask for an apology for. You were free to address smy userbozes directly to me, but that's not what you did. Tolerance is a two-way street, and you are doing to me exactly what you accuse me of doing. It's hypocritical. - BilCat (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't care that you don't like or acceot my views, but they have nothing to do with aircraft, and are irrelevant to any such discussion. My userboxes never expressed hatred for anyone or any belief (although you ilk thinks that simply disliking a behavior or having an alternate view is hatred, which is nonsnese). You haven't been specific on what you disagree with (atheism, marriage, Chinese communism/Taiwan, speaking a black creole language), so I can't address the specifics of what your issues with me are, and I doubt any discussion would be fruitful. I rarely edit on any topic related to my views, and that is by choice, partly because those articles tend to be contentious, and I do try to avoid contention if I can. When you first exibited your anger at my having reverted you, relizing it was out of proportion to my behavior, I did think that you may have been "offended" by my opinions. I had hoped better of you, but you proved you can't be neutral in an unrelated situation. I hope that's not typical of your behavior as an admin, but if it is, the the tools should be removed. No editor should let the personal views of someone else make him so angry that he can't interact civilly, and that questions your judgment, which is crucial to being an admin. I don't want to pursue an RFC agaist you, and I'm not going to at this time. You do genuinely seem to want to move on, and I guess that's all I can except of you, given your own immaturity and intolerance of others becasue of their personal views. Good day, and I hope we can avoid each other from here on out. - BilCat (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Houston Texans

Hello, I see that you disagree with my edit on Houston Texans. If we can't agree, I was wondering if there were any compromise edits you could think of. I will be happy to work with you until we come to an agreement. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Rewording what is there would be fine, but I still think the unpoped link to American football should remain. It doesn't have to be in the first sentence though. - BilCat (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the part I can't agree with. I don't mind the soccer articles using the term football in countries where the sport is known as football, but in Texas, the sport isn't known as American football, it's known as football. The consensus on the football talk page is weak, but i'm still trying to respect it through removing the term altogether since it's biased towards those not familiar with the topic. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of an encyclopedia is to inform those "not familiar with the topic". There's no need to obscure anything just to avoid an apparent bias. - BilCat (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That isn't the point of an encyclopedia. It's a source of information for everyone. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Pointless semantics - "Everyone" includes the uniformed. One word will not offend Texans or present bias. Even if it did, no one on WP cares a wit about Texans being offended by having the "American" prefixed to "football" anyway. This is WP - no one worries about what Americans think, period! If they did, WP would be written completely in American English, and use US Customary units only, as US readers are the largest proportion of WP readers AFAIK. - BilCat (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• @Doc Quintana, you're still missing the point. You're not wrong to say that WP:NPOV applies to everything on Wikipedia but so should the differences be mentioned between national/state/provincial demographics, spellings, cultures and beliefs... just my 2 cents here. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I see you'd rather revert war than discuss compromises. Fine, we're done here, and you'll probably be reported for edit warring disruptive editing against consensus. - BilCat (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Conformal fuel tank

Hey Bill, on the page of conformal fuel tanks, I'm of the opinion that aircraft with ventral fuel tanks (usually these are not aerodynamically optimized) is not to be considered as CFTs (which are aerodynamically optimized, example being those CFTs on the F-15Es and the Block 52+ F-16Ds). Taking into consideration that EE Lightning and Convair F-102/F-106 were not built with the CFTs in mind, the F-15C had the FAST packs designed/tailor-made for them. So, should we create a new page for VFT or expand a section in CFT to mention and clarify about the differences between CFTs and VFTs instead? Anyone else care to share your thoughts as well? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)--Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

<delurk - sorry Bill> just an opinion Dave but I would say that the Lightning tank is blended in and would have been called conformal if the term existed in the 1950s but I would agree some of the others listed just had tanks hung underneath. But an expanded explanation would not be a bad idea. MilborneOne (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• M1, that I would agree wholeheartedly but PRC made aircraft such as the J-6 and the Q-5 are obviously having a ventral dustbin-shaped fuel tank attached (incidentally, the word ventral dustbin conjures up the image of the Ju-52 bomber version in my mind), note that there has been no apparent attempt to blend it into the contours of the fuselage, ala EE Lightning fashion. Hence, they shouldn't be considered conformal (look for definition on →Wikitionary←) fuel tanks, at all. Thoughts, anyone? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Westland Lynx

Just for your information I have left a note with the IP user who left you a message about a possible conflict of interest! MilborneOne (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That does explain why he thinks I might work for AgustaWestland! Glad you're watching him now. - BilCat (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No Israel tag?

Browsing all the (adjective deleted) tags on your page I noted the lack of any about Israel.

Aren't there 2-state, 1-state, 0-state and 51st state tags available? Hcobb (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm avoiding stepping into that minefield! - BilCat (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Now if only more people could follow your fine example. Hcobb (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Al Franken

Don't be so tough on the distinguished Senator. We need more comedians in Congress. And Hall of Fame ballplayers.

Just so you won't forget what he looks like, here's a fistful of Frankens:

And now back to our regularly-scheduled program. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll hide that until Halloween. :) - BilCat (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Metrodome

Consensus seems to be to title the article "Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome". It turns out that (1) there is more than one "Metrodome" in the world; and (2) regardless of signage, the building itself is still just "Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome" and the green stuff inside is what actually constitutes "Mall of America Field". Any objections to renaming as "Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If that's the consensus, that's fine then. - BilCat (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:American football concepts

Okay, you're probably right, I was a little bold- I'll start a discussion on the talk page. Perhaps it just got a little too painful looking at the mess which is American football articles. The template is the worst I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The purpose of a template is to provide quick organized information and provide links to a specific topic. This template is probably longer (at least in terms of number of characters) than some GA's. The problem with the American football articles on Wikipedia is there is was absolutely no planning whatsoever. People started new articles or covered existing material already covered in depth in other articles. They almost all have cleanup tags on them and none of the articles are cited. The template was going to be the first in many positive changes to the whole group of articles, but now I'm a little bit unsure whether I want to do it anymore. I joined the very dead Wikipedia:WikiProject American football, I asked a question on the American football portal and was told "no one was home."

I did change a small portion of the template(the football positions) back the way I had it. That isn't too bold I think since I kept everything the same, only changing the order of the positions so they are grouped together. I will be leaving a message on the template page of the article, on the WikiProject talk page, and notifying the few people who seem to be trying to help improve the articles. Hopefully, I can get opther people interested, but I doubt it... They've been a mess for so long that I doubt anyone cares anymore... VictorianMutant (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Anti-vandalism

		The Minor Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For reverting two acts of vandalism to United States Marine Corps in succession. 20:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The funniest part about this one is that the Marine is holding an M16, not a SAW. I'm always happy to see your name on my watchlist, despite the differences we've had in the past. Cheers! bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. To be honest, I consider our differences to be minor, though I understand that you may not. From my side, it's not a big issue, menaing I hold no grudge agaisnt you whatsoever. Anyway, I didn't look at the photo, and I probably wouldn't have noticed the difference anyway, as most of the weapons I pay attention to have wings. However, I do see the humor now that you've pointed it out! I guess a good laugh at the vandlas is the only payment we'll ever get for ensuring the sanctity of open editing! - BilCat (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Revert Discussion

Please join in on the revert discussion at Talk:Necessary Roughness (film).--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

How is stating "Anti-vandalism" in your edit summary for this post an assumption of good faith? WHy even bring up the good-faith issue per WP:AAGF? - BilCat (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that a tenditious editor has stepped in, added an out of date ref, and reverted me, I see no reason to stay involved in the upkeep of the article. He doesn't follow consensus if ut disagrees whith his views, so God help you if you disagree with him on another point. Good bye. - BilCat (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Anonywiki

Thanks. --John (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Glad to help out. - BilCat (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't revert

You're welcome to question revisions... phrase by phrase (I carefully constructed)... but only an arrogant asshole(first) reverts a painstaking change in total. Last I looked this was an educational project... the article lead was too terse using terms of art (unfamiliar to the casual reader--our target audience!) and so did not well communicate clearly what was meant by the technical jargon. Please recognize reverting is a hostile act... why not slap me? // FrankB 16:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Come closer and I will! Actually, Bold, Revert, Discuss is an accepted guideline on WP, while WP:OR and WP:V are policies. I have no doubt you mean well, but the result was more of a mess than you're trying to clean up. Finally, please keep WP:CIVIL in mind, or might be be retired again. - BilCat (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine... Forsooth... GIVE ME BACK MY HOUR if you revert!) ... you're a prime example of why I rarely donate time to this project anymore. Actions like that, and the practice you cite makes this a hostile website. No respect for another's time. (btw-You wouldn't appreciate the painful outcome if you were in reach!) Have no idea either how your diseased imaginings reach to OR and V. Think you need to educate yourself. // FrankB 16:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Diseased imaginings"? Simple: You cited no sources, and that's not my imagination. - BilCat (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Harrassment

In a word, damn. It's too bad it unfolded like this. I guess some people should just find a less stressful hobby (though it's beyond me how so many people get so stressed out about writing things on the Internet). Cheers,--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm still not sure what's at the root of the conflict, but he seemd to take the whole thing very personally. Really strange. I do think Emglish language fluency might have been part of the problem, at least with full comprehension of what others write, as he took many things I wrote completely out of context. - BilCat (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For your words of support at Bzuk's talk page. It looks like MickMacNee is determined to continue this once the RFC ends in a day or so. He attacks me for my contibutions at AfD discussions as an admin, yet I have made very few administrative actions at AfDs - done a couple of procedural closes as far as I can remember, but that's about it. Obviously, I can't rais the issue at ANI at the moment, but once the RFC ends, then my hands won't be so tied. Mjroots (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the talk page revert

Odd that I have never edited the same pages as that editor and yet he attacked me. Hmmm..... - Ahunt (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Dave1185 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

• Dedicated to all of you guys~! (Note: this radio dedication is going out to Ahunt, Mjroot, BaseballBugs, Bill, MB1 and the rest of these nice folks...) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

3RR

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.

-- in lieu of a 3RR warning on Aviation history. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, but I was actually trying not to edit war. I've de-watchlisted the article since then, and will not be participating in any duscussion re: Whitehead from this point on, ANIs etc excepted. - BilCat (talk)

Mi-26 shootdown

Bilcat, you removed the details about the Chechnya shootdown. While I agree they had better figure on a separate page about that incident, I prefer to see them in the general Mi-26 article over not seeing them at all. Revert? Or will you kindly create the shootdown article? Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Not Bill, but the details were unreferenced. I don't think it'd be a good idea to start an accident article with mostly unreferenced text. Discussion on this probably belongs on the article's talk page (Talk:Mil Mi-26). That's the talk page's purpose.. -fnlayson (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

((deeply blushing)) At a second glance, the suggested specific article was found existent - and carrying the detail info. So I quite agree to Bill's action - and apologise for my over-hurried complaint. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. - BilCat (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Guess I missed the accident artile at first there. :( -fnlayson (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:BillCJ/UBX/atheism Is Harmful

User:BillCJ/UBX/atheism Is Harmful, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BillCJ/UBX/atheism Is Harmful (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:BillCJ/UBX/atheism Is Harmful during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BilCat. You have new messages at Dave1185's talk page.
Message added 04:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 04:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Dyn'Aero

Ah, I understand now. The edit summary could have mentioned it was covered under the Dyn'Aero MCR01 article, which didn't exist at the time I added the accident to the Dyn'Aero article (see talk:Dyn'Aero). Best, Mjroots (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he should have used an edit summary, but as he usually does use one, he may have simply forgot. - BilCat (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No harm done. Mjroots (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Film plots

I've run into whole scene-by-scene dissertations and it takes a lot to get them pruned. I had some luck in It's A Wonderful Life in reducing the size of the plot section but I have been much less successful in other articles, notably Tora, Tora, Tora. Putting a <plot> tag does at least identify the issues and using the talk page as a starting point does get community support for the moves, otherwise, I have seen the plot sections get reduced then little by little, watch as incremental changes get tacked on and the plot veers out of control again. Good luck there! FWiW, I was a coordinator in the film project but the vociferousness of the arguments and vicious [[[WP:OWN]] concerns just wore me down and I gave up the post. Bzuk (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Retrieval dates

Hello BilCat.

I saw that you reverted my removal of (what I called) false retrieval dates. I was under the impression that these dates were supposed to show when the actual link was added (the first time). Is this wrong? Where can I read about this? At first thought (or possibly even later on), "Verified" would be more appropriate to me, if this is all about verifying if the sources say what the article states they say.

Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved and Accessed are the common terms for when a web page in a reference was accessed. See WP:CITE#HOW. This is the assess date in cite templates like Template:Cite web. -fnlayson (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey.

Thanks for the input. I visited the link you provided. I can't find that the article takes a distinctive stance on either of our positions (or "theories"), except for the bullet point "the date you retrieved it (required if the publication date is unknown)", which I think supports my opinion, albeit somewhat vaguely. If the source has no publication date, and the (required) retrieval date wasn't added at the time, should the first editor who discovers it add today's date? The article doesn't say. Should the date be updated whenever the source is checked? The article doesn't say.

Or am I missing something?

HandsomeFella (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Using non-print or electronic media is fraught with problems, especially since so many editors do not identify when they have accessed the data. Whenever a "check" is made on an article and invariably, a review of any links to determine whether there are "dead links" then at least placing a marker as of the date of the check tells other editors that the reference source has been operative on that date. This is a "standard" procedure and should not be considered "false" or "misinformation"; it is merely a reaffirmation that the link is active. Every so often when an article is being revised, it is a common practice to update the non-print media links and that is why you will see the information given in two different ways, when the information was first written or created and when it was active or current. Consider my above comment as a gentle reminder to ask first or check with the appropriate group veterans when a question like this comes up again, otherwise you may incur the wrath of some of the crochety smart-aleks, like myself. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC).

Like to remove the image again

I would like to remove the image on the Thunderbird page. I didn't say it was repeated, I said it doesn't add anything that isn't already known by looking at the other images. As it stands, the list of images is longer than the body text, and most of them are redundant. Something has to go, and as this one gives the viewer little detail, and is an image of a missile already shown, it appears to be the least useful. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, hello? This thing working? *thonk thonk*. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. It looked fine to me at the screen resolution I use, but I looked at it at a highr one, and it does overwhelm the text. I'll try to look at it later and see if I can rearrange it to keep the image, but if not, I'll remove it. - BilCat (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth Moon article

Hi, BilCat -- thanks for the guidance on my Talk page. tgeller (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

General Electric H80

You have tagged General Electric H80 for deletion to make way for a move of another page to there. However, you gave the title of the page to be moved as General Electric H80 too. I have guessed that you meant to have GE Aviation Czech H80 moved, and have acted accordingly. If this was not what you wanted, let me know on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

PA-47 PiperJet Altaire

BilCat, I am the one that was trying to correct the PA-47 PiperJet Altaire page. I appologize for the sloppy updating and the uncited corrections. You can look at the Piper.com news release and I think if it is read you can see that it is just a "design improvement" on the PA-47 and because of the significant change in the design Piper thought it was appropriate for a renaming of the aircraft "The newly named PiperJet Altaire". Piper did not cancel the PiperJet, it is still working on the development of it and this is just a significant design change and is still the same program. I don't think it is appropriate that the PiperJet pages states that it was cancelled.

Piper.com statement of the renaming of the PiperJet: [2]

Joelvds (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I understrand about the wording of the PiperJet being "cancelled". I didn't write that, if I recall correctly, and I definitely change that wording if it's still there. By the way, the reason we went to having a separate page for the PJ Altaire is that the changes are significant enough to warrant separate cverage. The original PJ is beng treated as a proof-of-concept prototype, and we're trying to cover it that way as it has an extensive history of its own. We often do this with variants of main types, but sometimes also do it with prototypes. - BilCat (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your changes to my edit on USS Wasp

I hope this is the correct place to put in this question, or comment. If it is not, could you please put this in the proper place?

I do not know what you mean by the "text should not argue with itself." Had I written the piece (which I would have a hard time doing), I would have written it differently. I was only trying to correct an error that has been in print, to my knowledge, since 1967. I had seen this error on Wikipedia, and only wanted to do two things. One was to "right the wrong," and the second was to make the edit with as little change to the original text as possible.

I hope the reason you changed my edit is not because of a lack of credible source, or that you are not sure this source says what I say it does. I have photocopies of my sources, and would be willing to share them with you, if you need me to prove my accuracy.

There is at least one other area that needs to be changed, I believe. This concerns the message from Admiral Nimitz to Admiral Halsey, and the second padding. The best historians have not written that the communications officer had the anniversary of the charge of the light brigade in mind (or however the actual part reads). But I am willing to address that another day.

My main concern is the accuracy of Wikipedia, and whether Vice Admiral McCain changed flagships from Wasp to Lexington, and then returned to Wasp, which he did not do.

Regards, Scratchweaver (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I confused a portion of one article with the article on Wasp

BilCat,

I am sorry, one of my statements in my question regarding your editing of my changes on the USS Wasp (CV-18)article was incorrect. I got confused, and put together a portion of the Wikipedia article on John S. McCain, Sr., with the one on Wasp. (This concerns my statement about the message from Admiral Nimitz to Admiral Halsey during the Battle of Leyte Gulf. This is not in the article on Wasp.) Sorry about my mistake. I do hope to receive an answer from you soon.

Regards, Scratchweaver Scratchweaver (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

My edits

Hello BilCat,

First off I'd like to say that I hope that your health issues are coming along in a positive manner. I can relate to how frustrating it can be when your body decides to rebel against you. Secondly I'd like to apologize for what I did not realize was a violation of Wiki policy. After reviewing my mods I did catch several typographical and grammatic errors, but I honestly did not realize that I should have produced a bibliography of my information. Although I have many books that reiterate all of what I entered, I really don't have the time or inclination to document all of that bit by bit (I was ticked off at how much time I spent doing it in the 1st place!!). I will keep that in mind for future mods, should I decide to make any. It's good to know that people are looking out!!! Get well amigo.

Sincerely, ZDanimal —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZDanimal (talk • contribs) 19:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you refresh my meneroy as to what article this is about? - BilCat (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2010

• Ahem! Try clicking this. =） --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

for the "inuse" tag, Bilcat. I will use it henceforth as a politer way of begging for elbow room so I can write.

Georgejdorner (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

---

No problem. I noticed you said some of your edits were "disapearing" from the edit history. Generally that cannot happen unless an admin removes something, and there required to state whay they did it. Most likely what is happening is some form of edit conflict in which your edits aren't being save to the server in the first place. Another user has know way of knowng htat ths is happening. But f you get an :Edit conflict" screen when you try to save your edts, your verson wll be n the second edit box. You can then retreve it manually, and repaste it into the texct, and save it again. I hope that helps. - BilCat (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Gant/Hrbek issue

Hey BilCat. It was never my intention to attempt to mask my identity, and I reverted thinking that this was a settled issue, forgetting that it was argued on the Hrbek article, rather than the Gant article. I believe there was also some sparring other places long before that as well. As always, in Wikiwars, the battles tend to merge together, and only the outcome remains clear, and that was the case here. My apologies for any confusion my bad memory caused, and I want to be clear that I'm not trying to be hostile in any way. The frustration is mine and I have no right to bite you simply because you weren't involved in discussions 6 and 12 months ago. Hope there isn't any ill will and that we can continue this in gentlemanly fashion. Rapier (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and I understand. I'm also trying to remain cool here. I think 6 months is long enough to revisit this issue, as consensus does change. I'll be happy to take it up at another location if needed, such as the NPOV noticeboard. - BilCat (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ouch

Well that sounds like no fun at all - get better soon! - Ahunt (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sikorsky S-97

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Best wishes

Hope you are back in "the land of the living" soon! - Ahunt (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm feeling a little better today. - BilCat (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That is great to hear! Glad you recovered so quickly. It is amazing what a day or two away from Wikistress can accomplish! - Ahunt (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Good to see you back at it. :) -fnlayson (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Just in time too! See the lastest new poster at WT:AV#An incident I don't think we have. If he continues to interact, it might be fun to watch MMN go at him foll bore! Btw, I still have the same genreal health issues before, but add to it a chronic bronchitis or something similar, which acted up to the point that I I needed the short break this weekend. - BilCat (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well hopefully now you are in a position to take a deep breath! - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If he continues to interact, it might be fun to watch MMN go at him foll bore! - Now, that I'd like to see! Mjroots (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I meant "full bore" btw! A few well-placed words could probably arrange the encounter, provided Jim is still watching, as MMN is quite predictable in what he'll react to. :) - BilCat (talk)

I knew what you meant, but thought it would be rude to make such a blatant correction, which is why I did a c&p with the typo included. Mjroots (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't necessary in the end. See WP:ANI#MickMacNee. Mjroots (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Goodbye socker!

• Bill, do you remember the guy who got my rollback rights revoked? Well, I was correct in guessing that he was a sock of a banned user, which has been confirmed by a checkuser yesterday and... I got the rollback rights restored just a while back. Isn't it a great day today? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• That being said, I will quote Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time."; the time will eventually come for M to leave too. But I reckoned you knew that already, eh? Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If these admins would just listen to us the first time, it would save them a lot of work! :) Btw, do you have a link to the blocked user and his sock? I don't recall who it was, but I want to brush up on his tactics. Finally, it might be good for us to keep a dedicated master list of the blocked/banned users and socks we have "encountered for future reference. - BilCat (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• You've got mail~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• M has been blocked indef, told you his time would come eventually, didn't I? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oops, I missed that one because you didn't spell out his full name, Nick-Nack Knee. :) All I can say is this wonderful phrase common in the Appalacian hills (And possibly elsewhere: "Good riddance to bad rubbish!" Of course, he has yet to understand why,m and I doubt he ever will. I look forward to spotting his socks and getting them blocked, as someone of his ilk is unlikely to go away quietly! On the other hand, he's been successful overturning blocks before, so I won't cvelebrate too much. He's propably looking for another admin to service right now! :O - BilCat (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)- BilCat (talk)

• And another one bites the dust, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doc Quintana. Reminiscent of a scene from the Godfather: "he sleeps with the fishes now", eh? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, noW this edit makes sense! It's part of one of Docquin's POV pushing campaigns that did earn him a short-termblock for edit warring. It's a bit strange that a user would voluntarily "retire", then come back as socks to make controversial edits, but I'm not surprised in his case. Now tha;ts he's earned a one-week block, if he continues to use socks to edit, he can be blocked for a longer term - hopefully an indefinite one! :) - BilCat (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Persistance award

Thought you may be interested Lancer (Helicopter) has just been created! MilborneOne (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

AFD then? - BilCat (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I redirected it to Aérospatiale SA 315B Lama. - Ahunt (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. We probably need to check the sources he added, and see if we can use them to add some info on the Lancer to the Lama page. That mught keep him from trying to recreate it again! - BilCat (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BilCat. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
Message added 18:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Told you so~! Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Give 'em enough rope, and they'll hang themselves

• Bill, I really don't want to sound philosophical here but as some administrator always say, give 'em enough rope, and they'll hang themselves. Also, you once told me that should the situation escalates out of our control, we are all entitled to back off and disengage. Honestly, I don't want to lose a friend here the next time when your medical condition acts up, ya'know? You do remember the story behind the development of the Blackburn Buccaneer, right? Keyword here is "non-linear approach/solution". Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 15:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What exaclty are you referring to? Email me. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Break

Hope to see you back whenever you are ready. - Ahunt (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hope your break was good, it is nice to have you back! - Ahunt (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm just popping in. I'm still not sure what I'm going to do yet, but backing off enough to let the Wikistress settle down. - BilCat (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, stress can be a killer (believe me, I know!) - Ahunt (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox aircraft begin

Bill: I noted you removed the logo parameter on this template with the edit summary "Removed logo parameters per previous discussions". This orphaned at least one logo. I can't find any previous discussion on this at Template talk:Infobox aircraft begin, Template talk:Infobox aircraft type, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft, or even Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. Where did this discussion take place? - Ahunt (talk) 10:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

See Template talk:Infobox Aircraft#Logos on Infoboxes. I think this still applies. - BilCat (talk) 11:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks like at least one of the logos, File:B727.svg, is being claimed under fair-use. Anyway, I've looked also, and can't find the discussion I thought I remembered! I've no problem putting this up for consesnus at WT:AIR. I see no reason we need to keep this, or to use any logos at all, especially if they are just titles. - BilCat (talk) 11:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have problem if we aren't going to use logos, I just want to make sure that there is agreement. On my watch list this seem to only affect Seawind 300C and it isn't the most attractive looking logo anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The Seawind image is fair-use anyway. - BilCat (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Definitely, but I think if we want to it can be justified under normal fair use rules, but like I said I am not committed to keeping it as I am not sure it adds that much to the article anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Qantas Flight 32/A380 incident

Bill, I did not go into the article history. I noticed that there was no mention of the incident in the article, and decided that as the aircraft was so high-profile it would probably be better to raise the issue for discussion first. Doing so is not a criticism of your editing the article, which I was unaware of at the time I raised the issue. As I said, I believe the incident is serious enough for inclusion, but not serious enough to justify an article. Mjroots (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I was jst explaning what had happened for anyone h=who had noticed tht it had disapered! Anyway, I agree with you it should not have it's own article, (so much for "aviation porn!") and that is should go in the A380 and Quatas pages. - BilCat (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where Thewinchester got his ideas from. However, a look at his user page reveals an "ornery meter". I've seen that word used by someone else we are familiar with. Mjroots (talk) 07:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL. As long as he Winchester doesn't edit while seriously drunk! - BilCat (talk) 07:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not making light of his situation either. If editing while drunk as much of a problem for him as it appears to be, he needs help. Hard to give that over the internet though. - BilCat (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, all that Wikidrama could have been avoided if he'd said "Sorry, I was drunk when I nominated the article, and now wish to withdraw that nomination". Sure, anyone can make a mistake, even a big one; but admitting you've done so gets you more respect than trying to bluster it out. Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

So true. But it does make me wonder how often that has occured before, and I'm genuinely concerned if it has been often, for his own sake as much as WP's. - BilCat (talk) 07:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Bill, while I did say that SIA won't be grounding the A380 fleet due to this incident, I was half-expecting either Airbus or Rolls-Royce to advice SIA to conduct a more thorough precautionary checks for safety measures (per the usual SOP) before taking off but not both! Something is amiss here and my source is not telling me... --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I note you've changed your !vote. For me, atm it's just below the threshold. Shoud the grounding extend to all Trent-powered A380s, then I'd say that the threshold had been exceeded. I'm still open to changing my mind though. Mjroots (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with Mjroots, Lufthansa is not grounding their Trent 970 powered A380-841s yet and unless they do then that threshold is broken. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 20:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I've changed my !vote, due to further developments such as RR issuing a directive that affects all operators. Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

PING~!

• You've got mail~! Just some initial assessments, nothing concrete yet. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Btw, we seem to have a lot of IPs chiming in at the AFD! It would be nice if an CKUSR admin would drop by there. ;) - BilCat (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Already did and for once, M is on our side. Talk about strange... --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Are you playing reverse psychology with us now? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 20:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

To paraphrase, the late, great Groucho Marx: "Whatever Mick's for, I'm agaist it!" But seriously, I think this is where our AFD system falss short of perfect. WP is not a crystal ball, but WP:N we are being asked to determine "lasting notability" on the basis of initial reports, which in such events is incomplete. A "Probation" option might be something worth pursuing for AFDs for borderline notability cases. We have that defacto now when a "No consensus to delete" is the outcome, but that's very tenuous at best. As I've said before, I've developed a "gut instinct" for determining whteher or not an aviation accident/incident article is likely to be notable, and this one is definitely a borderline case. Only time will tell. - BilCat (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

EASA Emergency Airworthiness Directive issued. Mjroots (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Atlanta page

Vandalism on the Atlanta page is absurd! Please advise + assist. Thanks Get lost in Boston (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well decks

I researched the topic a little more. It seems that the first 3 ships (LHA-6-8) will not have a well deck or vehicle hanger.[3]. The LHA-9 and at least one other ship is planned with a well deck. [4]. Marcus Qwertyus 17:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

List of flags of the United Kingdom

Please do not redirect this page again. All talk pages and links are associated with this page. Thanks. Op finish them (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You're going to get yourself blocked if you don't stop. You're making a cut-and-paste move. Please LISTEN to what others are telling you, and do it the CORRECT way. - BilCat (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Royal Navy

Hi Bill, I noticed your edits with an IP about adding "British" before Royal Navy. In your edit summaries you claim that this is according to consensus. Could you please elucidate on where this consensus was established, because I can't find it. Thanks mate. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course not, I made it up to try to bully the IP! :P Actually it's used in a number of articles where there needs to be some clarification as to which royal navy is being referred to. The only main discussion I found was at Talk:Aircraft carrier#Royal Navy, where you effectively shot down attempts there to use this style of clarification to aid our less-informed readers (of which WP has many, and who are generally ill-informed about "accepted international standard"). From comparing IP address information, this appears to be the same user involved then. I'm not sure the same compromise can be achived here, as the usagfe is different, but your welcome to try. - BilCat (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm going to change my previous poisition which opposed renaming the Royal Navy article as the {{British Royal Navy]], so we can use the DABbed title in other articles where the context is not clear, since a simple adjective finds so much objection from both good and bad users. It may take me a few years to accomplish a move, but it will be simpler in the long run than fighting this on multiple article pages one page at a time, then having the same IP user do the same thing on another page a year later! - BilCat (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Kamov Ka-50

RE: Your "Removal of unneeded(?) note/detail". BilCat, who are you to pass such judgment!? In my, and opinion of many other Ka-50 enthusiasts, the note is/was very significant and as such is going back where it belongs! Furthermore, I would appreciate if you provide more info for your "edits", as per Wikipedia policy. Ltr,ftw (talk) 10:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: your edit of 29 September 2010, FWIW, "rebels" in the Russian media are normally referred to as "bandits". So the editor was factually correct in his terminology, although politically incorrect in WP. It's also much more satisfying to read about actions against "bandits" than against "rebels", especially in the original language! Santamoly (talk) 06:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• @Santamoly: Bandits vs Rebels, Great patriotic war vs Eastern front... all these reminds me of old imperial Russia and Soviet styled propaganda machinery. FYI, Wikipedia (WP) operates along the guidelines of WP:NPOV, meaning we are politically neutral hence your argument/assumption that WP is politically incorrect is in itself fundamentally flawed. No offence to you but please take note, thank you and best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I was using expressions like Great patriotic war vs Eastern front! But thanks for spicing up the dialogue. I was just observing that the meaning of the text was changed for no apparent reason other than "political correctness". The term "bandits" is still a term used daily in the media, usually applied to common armed thieves and criminals. It's entirely possible that they were not rebels, just plain mafia-type bandits. No proof was offered that they were actually politicized "rebels", and not common bandits. Santamoly (talk) 06:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Nobody said you were, but that's beside the point which you didn't quite catch. Anyway, shall we move on to other things? We're done here, you know? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Santamoly, you said "'rebels' in the Russian media are normally referred to as 'bandits'" in your fisrt post, but in the second post you're claiming that "rebels" and "bandits" means something diffterent (policitl rebels vs. criminal/thieves. There is often no difference between reblas and bandits (meaning they are both), which is what your first post implied was the case with the Russian media. So which is it?? Is there any proof they were common bandits, not politicized "rebels"? The text in the Kamaov article does give us a clue: "Ka-50 used live weapons against a real enemy for the first time." Usually that's not a statement made of mere criminals or thievs! - BilCat (talk) 08:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess we'd have to interview the originating journalist to sort this one out. I simply commented on changing terms for political correctness alone. Russia is depressing enough without having to be PC towards legitimate targets. God bless all here! Santamoly (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Message from Professor Storyteller

A section has been created on my talk page for us to continue the discussion we've agreed to relocate from the U.S. State discussion page. I look forward to seeing your thoughts there.Professor Storyteller (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your help on the US State article. I had resigned myself to a month of futile discussion. What a pleasant surprise to return and find you had solved the problem! Student7 (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. "Forced a solution to come forth" might be a better description! - BilCat (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

C130-J

Hello,

You may want to add your opinion on the subject of C130-J failed deals.

Best regards. Cochonfou (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Martin 4-O-4 or Martin 404?

How about http://www.airlinehistorymuseum.com/martin.htm http://www.calclassic.com/martin.htm http://www.marylandaviationmuseum.org/history/martin_aircraft/18_airliners.html http://www.skippyscage.com/aviation/wy/sheridan/index.php and especially http://www.plane-crazy.net/links/404_spec.pdf

The Martin engineer I spoke with a few years back said Glenn Martin himself came up with the name 4-O-4, not 4O4, not 404, not 4-0-4. Most people and organizations ignored it, using the names interchangeably. Even the FAA did it, issuing type certificates for the 2-O-2 and the 404. Glenn Martin got especially mad when Convair came out with the 440, believing it was a deliberate attempt to make their plane look more advanced than his (440 is more than 404).

When Eddie Rickenbacker was President of Eastern he also insisted on 4-O-4, bot nobody listened to him. He also hated the name "Connie" when applied to Constellations.

My dad moved from Eastern to Southern in 1969. Almost 100% of the employees referred to the aircraft as the Martin 404, the exceptions being maintenance people and pilots that came over from Eastern. JScottJ (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This is better discussed on the articles' talk pages. None of thoses soeurces are waht WP calls Reliable published sources. - BilCat (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation does not mean much. For example the Boeing 707 has been commonly pronounced 7-O-7, when the O really should be a zero. -fnlayson (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Attack vs gunship vs armed

Bill, just wanted to let you know that I regret how the conversation got somewhat heated. I have great respect for you, and let my emotions get ahead of me. Hopefully you'll see the merit in some of my points, or at least understand what I'm trying to convey. I hope we can work to improve the accuracy of these articles, and show an increased differentiation among the helicopter configurations. Best wishes. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 18:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand, and I can get a little emotional myself when discussing topics. My goal re: this topic is to get as many reliable sources presented so we can make the best decision based on them. We'll get it sorted out eventually. I think some of the info Ahunt presented on his page will help, but it still goes to my main point that the definitions nad usage overlap. Presenting the definitions as overlapping is probably the best way to go, and we can still have 3 articles dealing with the topic. - BilCat (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well I guess I still have issues with three articles, because I'm convinced one title is redundant. I don't believe in my heart that there are three kinds of offensively armed helicopters (sources aside) but maybe I'll come around. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 18:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The "Gunship" article isn't about helicopters - it's about the use of the term "gunship", which has several different meanings. It's not meant to replace the other two articles, but it's just an explanation of the various definitions of "gunship". Sure it needs work to be consistent, but we have to start with definitions from reliable sources first. WP doesn't set the standrds, we just follow accepted documented usage, even if they conflict or overlap. - BilCat (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Okay. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 18:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Bill, thanks for policing up my signature on the task force talk page. I've been so out of practice, it's like I'm a noob all over again. --Born2flie (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Bill I was so tempted to revert your edits on your user page. ;D --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 03:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Why?? They're just redlinks. - BilCat (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to be funny. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 03:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It'd only have been funny if you'd reverted onb Born's page! :P - BilCat (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You want me to revert something on Born's page? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 03:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Not unless you want to irk his ire! :O) - BilCat (talk)

Don't worry, I'll tell him you said it was okay. ;) --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 03:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sikorsky S-60

Hey Bill, made some subtle changes on your sandbox article, in my own inimitable style. As to a DYK, a good DYK might be the story of Igor Sikorsky and his engineering going out for a quick flight underneath the S-60, using the same principle as the sling-hoist for out-sized loads. The group of them were out in the open on improvised chairs, looking very silly. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I see you removed the citations for the librarial impaired - tsk tisk! :) And if you have a cite for that anecdote, add the story in (briefly) to the article, and perhaps we can use it in the DYK. - BilCat (talk) 08:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like it would be a good hook indeed - I don't suppose there's a picture of Sikorsky's little jaunt to make it a lead hook? If not though, that sounds like the kind of "quirky" hook DYK loves for a "closing note". - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed}

So, how may I help with the DYK? If it's needed, just let me know. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 06:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Basically, if you have the time, can you take the lead on applying for DYK, and shepherding it though the process? I'll watch and learn.I just think the S-60 is unusual and not well known, and ought to have a shot at DYK, but my health's not really up to trying to learn what to do on my own, or try to push it through by myself. I've got some ideas on what to write for the DYK, but no real idea what they want, but I'll try to write something here in the next day or so. Btw, I don't think have any sources on the flying chair incident, so if we don't find one in the next few days, I'm not planning on including it. - BilCat (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries, glad to help. I'll get it nommed in the morning. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed}

• And the DYK is up. Here's the source code for adding it, BTW:

{{subst:NewDYKnom | article=Sikorsky S-60 | hook=... that before the flight test program of the '''[[Sikorsky S-60]]''' [[flying crane]] was completed, its successor was already on the drawing board? | status=new | author=BilCat | nominator=The Bushranger | image=Sikorsky S-60 crane helicopter 1959.jpg | rollover=The prototype Sikorsky S-60. |alttext=A large helicopter with a five-bladed main rotor and four-bladed tail rotor, and massive housings for the engines on either side, squats over a bus-like cabin strapped underneath its pod-and-boom fuselage..}}

- The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• • And it's already been approved and in the queue to go on the main page at 1am New York time tonight. Nice work! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you VERY much! - BilCat (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem! (Also replied to your question on my talk page). - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sikorsky S-60

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

What's the betting...

...that Sun Way Flight 4412 gets taken to AfD? Mjroots (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If MMN is still unblocked, it's a sucker bet it's goes to AFD within 24 hours! - BilCat (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't even have an airline article to merge it to, at least not that I can find! - BilCat (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly the airline is San Vai (see discussion at Aviation Herald page), but Sun Way will do for now. Is "Keep, just to annoy MMN" a valid rationale? Mjroots (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

<<<<Stalker comments removed>>>> 17:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you've got a stalker, Bilcat! Mjroots (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Another one?? Could that be construed as baiting, since I'm not "permitted" to respond to him per the terms of my unblock. - BilCat (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, but as you've not responded to him there's no need for any admin to take any action, is there? Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You never know, one of his admin buddies would probably contrue my mentioning of "MMN" as baiting on my part, and block me for a week! ;) Btw, he may just be stalking you, not me! - BilCat (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoever it is he's "stalking", he shouldn't be doing it - just one more point for his eventual RFC/U. - BilCat (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sun Way Flight 4412 No comment... Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That's an awfully weak nom, in my opinion, almost a "stuff doesn't exist" argument. At this point, this "delete cabal" (for lack of a better term) seems to be nomming accidents on sight, just on "principle". I guess frivilous AFDs are no longer considered "frivilous", but the norm. Just a waste of time better spent elsewhere on WP, really. - BilCat (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the Qantas Flight 32 incident is apparently much more serious than Qantas admitted. Apparently, the aircraft was nearly lost, with only the presence of an extra two crew able to provide assistance saving the aircraft. A report is due out this week from the ATSB. Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's one of those incidents that, in hindsight, one will wonder why it was ever AFDed - and both of us were initial deletes! - BilCat (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. It's not that often I !vote "delete" at AfD, but it appeared to me that the incident wasn't quite notable enough to sustain an article based on the initial reporting. Subsequent reporting revealed that the incident was more serious than it appeared at first, hence my change of !vote. Mjroots (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, based on intial reporting - which wasn't the whole truth, apparently - it sure appeared to be a non-event. - BilCat (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Notable residents section

I was using "we" as a whole for the site; as far as I know, the consensus against notable resident sections has been in place for quite a long time, though I cannot point to the specific conversation. I know at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennessee, while wholesale removal of notable residents is not desired, it does seem to be the case that if someone is to be noted, any such mentions should provide evidence that the person strongly influenced that town. For a place like Nashville, this becomes increasingly difficult, compared to a notable person from a small town like Jellico (one of the examples provided in the WT:WPTN thread). I admit I was too brief in my statement in the edit summary, but I strongly disagree that either Cyrus or Kesha have strongly impacted Nashville as a whole. Yes, they are internationally popular, but that's a very different thing from the town inheriting notability *because* they are from there, which is how I interpret such sections as being meant for. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Notable people, such lists are indeed allowed to some degree, those prose is "preferred" - I don't recall ever having seen such a prose section, however. It also recomends having a "list of..." article for lengthier lists, which in this case is at List of people from Nashville, Tennessee. That's not quite the same thing as saying such lists aren't used at all. I realize yu didn't say much in the summary (which is a bad place for details anyway, theough the extra 50 characters option for summaires is useful for those of us (me!) who do often write long summaires! :) Also, the WPCITIES guidelien doesn;t limit the list to people who have only influenced the city, just "any famous or notable individuals that were born in, or have lived for a significant amount of time, in the city". I'm not arguing that the prevailing consensus you describe is wrong, jsut that you probably need to get it "codified" somewhere first, and/or have the existing guidelines modified. - BilCat (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD

I didn't mean that you couldn't engage in legitimate discussion with MMN and I'm certainly not going to block you for having a sensible discussion in an AfD. Just... less of the m-f'ing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think you're right on those points. Anyway, he's clearly stalking me or MJR by comemnting on my talk page. I'm going to ANI to report it - I think anyone in their right mind would know that commenting on the talk page of a user who was blocked for "baiting" is a bad idea, but then Mick's definition of "bad idea" is quite different from that of the rest of us. :) Still, I don;t appreciate tha way he responded at the AFD - he well knows that I meant SNOW, and that "Sppedy Keep" is often used on AFDs in place of SNOW. Al he had to say was something like "SNOW is the term we usually use in AFDs". Anyway, I should have expected a WP:DICK to be a {{WP:DICK]]. - BilCat (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't know that SNOW was what you intended. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I find the use of various terms in AFDs confusing - I think SNOW was what I intedned! :) - BilCat (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's the vast array of notability guidelines that do my head in. How many do we need? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That too! I think some joker purposefully crafted them to be overlapping and contradictory just to watch the confusion at AFD when people use the same guideline to support opposite points! :) - BilCat (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Howdy, you must learn the ways of the force. If you feel as though you're being bothered at an Afd, merely ignore it & let the closing administrator of the Afd, decide if you opinon there, is valid. GoodDay (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think I'm in the mood for such prattle today? He's stlaking my talk pagem, for God's sake! - BilCat (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I know you meant well. I'm just very frustrated right now. -

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

RFC about MMN

BilCat, re your comments at ANI, if you want to assist in drafting the RFC about MMN, then it's at User:Mjroots/MMNRFC, where you are welcom to present evidence and raise any issues that you feel need to be raised. Keep the language as neutral as possible, and let the evidence presented speak for itself. No need to sign anything until the RFC goes live. Mjroots (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if that will be acceptable under the terms, but if it is, I'll be glad to help out. Thanks anyway, and for your comments about the AFD. I think I'd rather stay from the AFDs away for now! - BilCat (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFCC explains about RFCs on users. Mjroots (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)My 2 cents here: I concur, Bill, just stick to the facts of this case and supply as much relevant evidence/information as you can possibly find and let the guys at RFC get to work. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, Dave. :) - BilCat (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Groucho Marx

Ah hah, a fellow Groucho fan. "Say the secret woyd and win $100". GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's the only form of Marx-ism I tolerate! :) - BilCat (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you administrator that you giving me warrming?

>>You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Constitution.

There are not reverts. They are editing. You want discuses them you are welcome. This you who reverts edits without arguments.

>>Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

This is you opinion of "disruption", I need not cooperate with anybody. The issue is science and true. You have no arguments so you choose to scare me. Anyway remove you note from my discussion page if you are not administrator.

>>In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.

Keep it for you. Edits are not reverts. I edit you reverts without arguments that is one point for you, and you will be first who reverts three times. Remember!

>>If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes.

Start discussion. this is your prerogative, I will respond. Until know you did not have arguments. Only one is that I disrupt of consensus - which I think you are the defender and you need not argue about facts.

>>Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors.

Consensus is not important. Important is science, true and facts. 99% can dislike the true but have to agree with facts. Wikipedia is not a forum to comfort vanity of majority. This is encyclopedia - scientific work.

>>If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Why not? I fight for true and I proofing the facts. This is you dream that you can comfort yourself by editing "new speech" mess.

>>Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.

You can do it yourself. I need not help with argue facts.

>>In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

If you are administrator do it, we will see what consequence you will pay. if you are not administrator stop lecture me, remove you notice from my discussion page and start to discuss.

--Cleaghyre (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Consensus is not important. Important is science, true and facts. 99% can dislike the true but have to agree with facts. Wikipedia is not a forum to comfort vanity of majority. This is encyclopedia - scientific work.". Er, no, sorry. WP:CONSENSUS is important. And Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. We don't have to "agree with facts" if the facts cannot be verified with a reliable source. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Aérospatiale Gazelle

sigh... fine, I made those edits for several reasons which I wouldn't have been able to fit in the summary... but yeah I usually forget anyway, so oh well. As for the edits themselves, I really don't think the law enforcment users are necessary, realistically who knows how many of them are actually in police service not to mention the sources concerning them are somewhat unreliable, upon closer look. The article should stick to military users solely. Buttons (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Jamaican Article: I'm Trying to Add the Citation, but you Keep Reverting While I'm Adding It

I'm trying to add the citation on Irish-Jamaican heritage, but you keep reverting 30 seconds after I edit.

Please show some courtesy and let me have some time to post the citation.

You should post an "add citation" banner because that gives the person time to add the citation-- rather than reverting 30 seconds after I try to add the citation in.

98.245.148.9 (talk) 05:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Changes/shmanges to BAC TSR-2 and De Havilland Comet

Since another editor is going around changing the style of the reference areas, I changed only the two articles presently in GA reviews. Can you change them back just for the time being because I wanted to see what the reviewer would make of the change. Then after that, I will propose it to the Wiki Aviation Project Group for comment as an accepted system of referencing. FWiW, how you doin' ? 19:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, but can you provide the link the guidelines that state this is now the accepted method? To my knowledge, both styles are accepted and optional, and ought to be discussed before changing them. The non-header style seems better for WPAIR articles, as our TOS can be quite long. - BilCat (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't call it the accepted system but it was the system in use in 2006 when a Swedish editor introduced the system in order to categorize the elements of a reference source. Why I introduced the "tuck-in" method of hiding the notes, citations and bibliography listing under "references" came from a series of challenges by the diehards who insisted that the term "references" stood for all sorts of sources; I had seen it used as a list of citations, etc. Then the "other sources", "for additional reading" and other titles were also in play. I typically changed all the Wiki aviation articles I encountered, 6,000 now and counting, to a consistent style but I do agree that the fully laid out form works well for some articles while the other "embedded" listing works best with shorter articles. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC).

Rawle D. Lewis

Hi. I've restored it to an earlier version which was deleted on a "prod" basis. Deb (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It still needs some work to establish notability though. Deb (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey...

Good to see you editing. Did not seem like you took much of a break there. Hope you are feeling OK. Keep up the good work. -fnlayson (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, bad case if Wiki-addiction! Anyway, it was mainly to remind me not to stay on so long as usual, but the last few days have been pretty much back to normal of my WP editing. My health still isn't good, but at least it's back to my "normal" for now. - BilCat (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No kicking this habit. :) Look the Bell 407 operators. -fnlayson (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow. Excuse me if I'm just a bit dense, as I'm still not getting much sleep. - BilCat (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was a bit interesting that Jamaica has 3 Bell 407s. No big deal though.. -fnlayson (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The Laughing Man & Individual Eleven

Sorry about not adding a discussion, it's being discussed in the main article Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex where the novels are being discussed. Though it's not that big of a deal IMO, the article has been stubb for over 2 years now and looks like content forking. The only information it has that's new is the voice cast.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

anyways, if you wish to contribute to the discussion, please be free to do so.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I may stop by and have a look later. - BilCat (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Chancery English

Hi!

A month on (*cringe*), I've responded your edit on Middle English and the Chancery standard at Talk: Middle English. You might like to have a look. Cheers! 01:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Bzuk (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 08:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of CFE Company

The article CFE Company has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I don't see sufficient evidence for notability to pass WP:COMPANY

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tubetest (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I've contested the PROD. I'll try to add a secondary source within the next 48 hours, so I'd appreciate the courtesy of not taking the article to AFD until after that, if no source is added. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• I used the GE page as a ref and added a Jane's article also. If you could footnote to the book refs listed there, that should cover it. -fnlayson (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-article link - Fiat G.91

Hello! How do you mean "non-article link" is this? Sorry, but I don't know the rules of en.wiki's Aviation project, only the hungarian rules. --80.99.225.180 (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC) (Gyantusz)

It has nothing to do with rules. There is no separate article on the G.91Y on English WP to link to, only the Fiat G.91. I am working on creating an article for the G.91Y, but it's not ready yet. - BilCat (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry! I was stupid. Just I see now, I linked the name of italian into the english article... it:Aeritalia G-91Y All right, it's my fault. Never mind. --80.99.225.180 (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You old curmudgeon!

Have a good day anyway, FWiW, just don't celebrate it! Bzuk (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Baby Boeing

Sorry, I just swiped your pic and caption -- couldn't resist. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem! Glad you liked it. :) - BilCat (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:Thanks

You're welcome. I do not take much pleasure in deleting other people's hard worked on material, but every once and while I can listed a tsunami of reasons to delete and few if any to keep, and pages of this nature are magnets for all manner of policy and guideline problems. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching the page, and so far everyone who has come to participate in the afd had done so with some edit history. While I admit that there are people whom I have never seen adding their two cents to the page I can not find any evidence of canvassing or external petitions for support. My instinct tells me that the people who are arriving to render an opinion are doing so as a result of the previous debate over casualty figures given in the article, and arrived at the afd as a result of the watch they were keeping on the article. For now, I think that a careful observation of the afd page is in order, but I see no reason at present to suspect something is wrong with the pond such as it is. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Could the re-listing thing ("This debate has been included in the list of...") do some of this? -fnlayson (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

==Re: Ravi Zacharias== Hi BilCat. Just wondering what you meant by "my own personal analysis," and how exactly I violated Wiki's neutral POV policy and did not write in a formal tone with my edit of the Ravi Zacharias page? I stated the compatibility of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the theory of evolution and that Zacharias was incorrect in concluding they were incompatible. He is simialar to many creationists who do the same. The non-incompatibility of these two science entities is a matter of fact. Please could you perhaps give me an example of a wording of what I wanted to say that would be more acceptable? Kind regards, mob2003.

List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution

Your comments on the discussion underway at Talk:List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution would be appreciated. Rillian (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sidney Poitier 's title

He's not an honorary knight and even if he were, as the articles Sir and Order of the British Empire point out, when a person with an honorary knighthood who gains citizenship in a Commonwealth Realm (like the Bahamas) the title automatically becomes substantive. Whoever added the note to the article is mistaken... even the Bahamian government refers to him as "His Excellency Sir Sidney Poitier". I've brought this up on the talk page, but nobody responded. It's been over a week, so I made the change. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I hadn't checked the talk page, my bad. The summary was cryptic, however. - BilCat (talk) 08:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It's alright... it's not really an important enough detail to have on the page, anyway. These kinds of things can turn into messy edit wars, no matter what sources you use. -- MichiganCharms (talk)

Lend

Thank you for the notification that SAE has "loan" and "lend" meaning the same thing, at least as a verb. Either one, therefore, is accepted American usage.

"To loan

I loan you loan he/she/it loans we loan you loan they loan"

...the thought of the above conjugation, however, will forever make me groan.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A fi wi langwaj, mon. i di only wun wi av. - BilCat (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahrite, den. (I am not sure I would want to see a version of Wikipedia in Jamaican Creole.)

Just a note, though; the only time I have ever heard a Jamaican say "mon" is when he was imitating the way Americans think we talk. When we say "man", the "a" is short and flat, but it is still an "a" and not an "o".

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know about the "o" in "man", but I wrote it that way for emphasis/distinction - I do actually try to pronounce it correctly. I'm still trying to get used to the way American Southerners pronounce their "I"s as a flat "a" - they have a hard time with my strong Jamaican-influenced "I"! Btw, there actually is a proposal for a Wikipedia in Jamaican Patois here, and a test in the WP Incubator here. - BilCat (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It could really use a lot of help from native speakers, so even if you aren't interested in it yourself, perhaps you know some people who might be. I'm not allowed to speak Patwa by Jamaicans (I'm sure you know what I mean!), and I have no experience writing it, but I'll try to help out where I can, such as on article maintenance and linkings. - BilCat (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Douglas DC-3 Operators

You are welcome to start it! Mjroots (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be easier to list the non-operators! Anyway, I'm checking the DC-3 article history to see if one existed before. - BilCat (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably not started because it may be the longest list on wikipedia! MilborneOne (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Douglas DC-3 operators ! MilborneOne (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

you mind?

why are you redoing my changes to the NFL-AFL meager, and NOT TALKING TO ME ABOUT IT LIKE A COWARD??? I am making that page easier to read, and adding info I find relavent. Now you can either help me make those edits, or be reported ASAP. If they is something u find wrong, tell me on the dicussion board, or let it be. Good day!--71.236.0.245 (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea who you are, or what content you're objecting to being removed, as you are using a dynamic IP address that has never edited that page before. I've removed some content from that page because it's been added without reliable sources, and was not factually correct. And I'll keep doing it, as per WP policy. - BilCat (talk) 06:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I was in the process of doing that (adding reliable sources) when u hit the reset button, instead of helping me do so (continental league only needed a [[]] or a spelling correction, if u look it up, u will find iton wiki). I should be wiki policy that within 10 mins or so of a change, if a user wishes to make a correction or reset, they need to contact the person to expain the sistuation. After set time, then its fair game. Also, this doesn't expain why you resety even though I was making the article better to read by spacing and adding bullets. I'm pretty sure that when all is said and done that a thrid party will be in my favor over the latter.

Now, what is so wrong with my edits? and if I am able to back them up, will you consent to leave them be? or ust I go to a higher authority?--184.77.10.72 (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

As long as you cite reliable published sources (print or internet), there should be no problem. I'll be happy you help you get it right. As to there being a set time to allow edits, there isn't one, and there probsbly won't be. Each editor uses their own discretion. - BilCat (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I will now sit. :) And i wish there was, so that s/o who edits or is editing gets a safe hour or something. Wiki users should be better infounded to know that you don't citi wiki links but to cite the sources linked to it (or imho, if you cite wiki, you should cite the latest article in the history section, so the author knows when and what you used) and those that read wiki should check back with the page whenever they can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.77.10.72 (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Troll alert? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No, just an inexperiencned user, as far as I can tell. - BilCat (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Still, he's no different from the one you just changed diaper for and I see that MB1 has correctly told him off on his talk page as well, saved me the trouble of templating him for NPA. (PS:How do you turn off this new user edit interface??? It's damn irritating... JIMBO~!!!) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 21:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Which new user edit interface do you mean? What's different about it? Id this on the newer Vector fskin? I'm still using Monobook, and there doesn't seem to have been a change there, except for a disappearing edit toolbar last week (fixed by unchecking the "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" box on the Editing preferences tab.) - BilCat (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hey, thanks for pointing that out to me... and we return you to our regular programming. Oh joy~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 21:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Did that help fix the problem, or is it another issue? - BilCat (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, Bill... thanks to your advice, it solved the disappearing edit toolbar problem (potentially another head-scratching one) once and for all. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 03:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Telegram for Mr Bill Meow! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the head up, I thought I was the only one feeling that way about him. Good grief! On another note, this newbie "User.Zero.Zero.Zero.One (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)" reeks of someone we might have crossed path with before. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox:Project

Oh, excellent idea! I should have time over the weekend to have a bash at something if you want to get the ball rolling at WT:AIR! Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Province of Carolina

BilCat,

I don't mean to make waves on this site, but I am curious about your questioning of Richard Middleton's credentials. He is a professor of American History at Queen's College in Belfast. He has written several books on colonial history, including Colonial America (Blackwell Publishing, first edition, 1992; fourth edition to be released in June of 2011), The Bells of Victory: The Pitt-Newcastle Ministry and the Conduct of the Seven Years' War, 1757-1762 (Cambridge University Press, 1985), and Pontiac's War: It's Causes, Course, and Consequences (Routledge, 2007). Middleton's Colonial America is a highly regarded text book on early American history.

On the bottom of page 125, Middleton states:

The most remarkable feature of the Fundamental Constitutions was that its landholding structure was pyramidal. Carolina was to be divided into two provinces, Albemarle and Clarendon, each comprising a number of counties. Each proprietor would own twelve thousand acres in every county." (Richard Middleton, Colonial America: A History, 1565-1776 (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing, 1992, 1996, 2002), 125.)

Do have have a different source that challenges Middleton's assertion?

Thanks, and have a good evening.

Ernie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernie Scribner (talk • contribs) 05:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Bill or Cat,

I haven't heard back from you. You raised the question about the validity of sources. Do you not think Middleton's book is a valid source? If not, why don't you accept it?

Thanks and have a great day, ErnieErnie Scribner (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Aircraft reimplementation

Hi,

Sorry about the five month delay on what I proposed here, but I've finally reimplemented {{infobox Aircraft}} as a subclass of the modular templates. Have a look at the test cases to see the effect. I've asked the closer of that TfD to have a look as well before I propose that {{infobox Aircraft}} be un-deprecated as it is now functionally identical to the other system (and indeed uses the same code, so changes to the latter will automatically update the former). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 07:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it will work. The main creator of those modular infoboxes, User:Rlandmann, is active again on WP, so I'll ask him to have a look at it too. He'll understnad the techinical side of it, which I absolutely do not! :) - BilCat (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Thats seriously clever :) Thanks Chris! --Rlandmann (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. Should I just drop a line to WT:AIR over the changes, or is there a better place to put it? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

WT:AIR is definitely the place; thanks again --Rlandmann (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

...for your explanation of the massive deletion of info in Scramjet. As you mentioned in your instructions, above, unexplained edits are bad. IMHO, trivia sections are bad, too but, darn it, if someone is gonna take the time to edit something, they should at least be willing to explain what/why they did it.

Thanks! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 19:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

C-130J pic

Thanks for letting me know about the Anons removal of my C-130J Hercules pic. I have replied to you at more length on my User Talk page (as you say, it most certainly is a J model) - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice insight

Based upon recent discussions in several places, I have begun work on an essay that seeks to clarify just how and when discussuion of a film-before-its-filming would per policy merit inclusion in some manner, or per GNG even merit a seperate article. Your observation that such coverage might be better looked at per WP:EVENT was the catalyst. Please look over User:MichaelQSchmidt/Future Films and offer your insights. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, and glad to be of service. Having been through similar AFD discussions regarding the WP:AIRCRASH guidelines over the past 2 years, often quite contentious, that was the angle we eventually had to take. WP as a whole puts more weight into general guidelines over those developed by projects, and we eventually had to "swallow our pride" and scrap our detailed article guidelines! I hope the outcome of your efforts will be embraced by WPFILM in some manner. - BilCat (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A related discussion

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Future films#Proposed ammendment to section on Process#Notability Your comments toward my attempt at clarity are quite welcome. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words

DGAF

This user does not give a fuck, mmmkay?

• I present to you... the five-ass monkey~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• BTW, it would be marvelously lovely to hear you out on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air France Flight 7. Don't let that nit-wit get into your head, dyslexic or not, you're still a awfully good friend of mine. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much!! :) - BilCat (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

IPs problematic edits

Please see this on AN/I, which may interest you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

So, you're a bad person then?

Once I can understand (hey, it's also the number of times I've blocked myself), but twice? And why is the degree of warnings you're issuing to yourself escalating? I don't know what you're up to here Bill, but it scares me. ;) Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It's just the warning script I use, and it's easy to be on the wrong diff when I send the warning. - BilCat (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to keep my split personalities in line, hence the escalating warning! :) - BilCat (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"Down, sit, stay"! ;) - Ahunt (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my other personality is a dog. Woof. - BilCat (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

That looks a little out of order, like "ready, fire, aim". :) -Fnlayson (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Temco T-35 Buckaroo

Evening BillCat. You recently added the phrase "(US naval designation TE-1)" to this article. Later in the text it says TE-1 was a company designation and charts the TE-1A to TE-1B development. It doesn't look right for the USN, as they ran the later Pinto as TT-1, implying it was their first Temco trainer; and there is nothing in the Wiki article to suggest they had Buckaroos. Got a good ref?TSRL (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it looks like you're right. I made an errant assumption, so thanks for catching it. - BilCat (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ping~!

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

--Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm back. Anything for me? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You've got mail~!

Hello, BilCat. Check your email – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

--Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Calling to arms

Ever heard of the Pugachev's Cobra? Ever heard of a Sukhoi, or a MiG? Ever heard of "Foxbats", "Flankers", "Fulcrums", or Fullback"? Do you know what they are? Do you know what the Soviet aerospace industry is like? Do you know who the Americans really fear? Do you know how much headache it caused to the West? Do you know how much attention the fighters are getting? If the answer is NO, then there are clearly some catching up to do. During the next few days, I'll be working on the MiG-29K, Su-34, Su-35 and Su-37. I want to bring them all up to the same standard as the Su-33. If you want to participate, please come along and help out. Don't be hesitant. Give the Soviet aerospace industry the recognition it really deserves. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 11:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hi BilCat, I saw a few weeks ago you decided to retire. Please don't do that again, Wikipedia loses so much when people of your calibre decide to retire. You're one of the core editors that form WikiProject Aviation, helping to expand articles and doing terrific work. I aspire to be an editor like you, and I'd be pretty damn happy even if only I was half as good as you are. Well, I am trying – if you look at my contributions and edit count, you might have an idea where I'm heading. I'd like to ask if you can mentor me on stuff like writing articles because I have a plan to promote some articles (see above) to GA and FA statuses. I'd be rapt if you agree to let I can ask you anything if I need help. Thanks! Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 11:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I'm still semi-retired due to real-life problems, but I'd be happy to give you any advice where possible. Send me an email, and we'll see what we can do. - BilCat (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Boeing 720 sandbox

Hey, Bill. I'm going to move your 720 sandbox to main space. It needs more work, but is good enough to move. Just wanted to let you know ahead of time. Thanks for starting and helping with it. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for keeping up the work on it. I still have some info on the 717 name to add. Although I haven't found a source that states it directly, it does seem that the 717 was offered as a 5-abreast airliner, and probably used the KC-135 airframe, hence the designation. I'm trying to put an explanation together that isn't synthesis/OR on my part. - BilCat (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Winnipeg Jets logo

See: photo 3. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC).

Not worth much: Per True North Unveils Jets Logos, "The design cues for the plane were inspired by the military jets flown by the Air Force over the years." But be wrong along with the Canadian media if you insist, I won't revert you. I almost re-retired over this, and I still may. I'm not quite back to my old wiki-self yet, and if silliness like this continues, I may never be. - BilCat (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Silliness is much disparaged, but without it, there wouldn't be much fun in this wickywacky wonderland. BTW, I "hate/dislike/couldn't give a hoot" about the logo, even being a 'pegger myself with connections to the militaryafioso. FWiW, I was hoping for more of a rise from you as I do so enjoy our exchanges. Bzuk (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC).

There is silliness (fun stuff with no real consequence), and there is silliness (errors propogated by the ignornt mainstream media). Let's stick with the former, and get rid of the latter. - BilCat (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• On another note, I've been meaning to ask Bzuk a question, why do you change the format of the citation templates I've provided on some article pages? And is that really necessary? Don't worry, this is being asked without any prejudice, please do not misconstrue my intention of good faith and my opinion of yours. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

As to your issues with the MSM, Sarah calls it the "lamestream media" (not that I give Ms. Palin credit for much...), I totally agree, although in the case of a meaningless logo design, it appears to be a tribute to an earlier RCAF team that won the Stanley Cup and whose team members were wearing an RCAF roundel on their uniform. The new Winnipeg Jets have come under a lot of scrutiny and some controversy over their choice of name, logo and uniform colours. Fans wanted to keep the old "Jets" name even though it went back to former owner (and former New York resident) Benny Haskin's preference for the NFL New York Jets team's name. Somehow that bit of lore has long since been forgotten in the demand that the team keep its original NHL team moniker. The design actually does feature an RCAF insignia/roundel and permission had to be obtained from the Toronto Maple Leaf hockey team even to use a red maple leaf in the roundel. The stylized CF-18 is in the team's launch press conference, called a tribute to 17 Wing which is based at CFB Winnipeg and also includes the 1 Canadian Air Division HQ, the same group that each year sends out CF-18s to intercept Santa at Christmas. CF-18s are constantly in and out of the city although not permanently based at CFB Winnipeg, and my only thinking is that the Canadian Forces's Heritage and History Division which is also based in Winnipeg had a role in the selection of the imagery as the Department of National Defence is listed as a contributor on the Jets website. I've already received an email from an aviation historian in Canada's Air Force, based in Ottawa, trying to trace how the logo was put together. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC).

Dave, I'll answer you on your talk page... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC).

Enterprise

Oi, thanks for fixing my mistake. I suppose I was thinking of the shuttle program as a whole and forgot which page I was on! — Huntster (t @ c) 02:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It happens to all of us, often more than we'd like! :) - BilCat (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

MNN very close to being BANNED now

• See User talk:Mjroots#MickMacNee for more details. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

For all his so-called "good work" on WP, WP:CIVIL is a policy MMN has always thought did not apply to him, and has said so on several occasions. (Editing while drunk hasn't helped either, and I strongly suspect that some if not all of his parting shots were written while he was in such a state!) The last paragraph of Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable, a new essay, sums up perfectly why MMN is no longer welcome here. - BilCat (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• From the peanut gallery, it is very clear that Arbcom (or as he calls it the kangaroo court) is going to BAN him... so, its like what you've said before: "Good riddance to bad rubbish!" And life carries on, per WP:You are not irreplaceable. Do we miss him, nah... not in a million years, pal. Psychologist has revealed that every human being has their character developed by the age of 5, anything beyond that is a personal choice and obviously, he chose to confront everyone because he is sensitive new age guy? Oh please... whats the difference between an Anglican priest and a Catholic priest? Pretty obvious, ain't it? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the "take-way" from this episode is that not everyone's mental health is compatible with being a Wikipedia editor, just like not everyone's mental health is compatible with driving an automobile! - Ahunt (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Well said, and it is like the time when I visited a friend who was warded in the asylum being treated for chronic depression, I saw this boy playing gameboy and doing a crossword puzzle all at once, the boy looked at me and said: "I may be mad but I'm not stupid!" So true. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite true. I worked as a psychotherapist for a number of years and one thing I learned is that people with any IQ can suffer from mental illness, with a few exceptions. For instance: mental retardation is limited to people with low IQ by definition, but even very bright people can find ways to combine things like substance abuse with personality disorders. - Ahunt (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The key is to build on the good things that you have (who cares if its only 50-60% of your target, you tried... right?) and not on the bad-smelling potato/tomato that you're stucked with, for if you'd observed carefully... everybody needs to grow, be it emotionally/mentally/physically. The trouble doesn't start when they stop growing, its when they start to shrink then all the big kahuna begin to pop out of nowhere... the anger, the guilt, the resentment and all the negative feelings. Personally, I've seen old service members retiring, some would fade away quietly while some would go on to their next intended target to do what they love or missed. This clearly shows that everybody is capable of doing most anything but the ultimate choice lies in them. No? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

WP is not therapy - and neither is my talk page! - BilCat (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Facepalm ... apologies for getting carried away. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries! - BilCat (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Btw, my wiki-mail is activated again, if needed. - BilCat (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Bill - thanks for the use of your space! - Ahunt (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Also, see this essay → WP:The best way to avoid ever being blocked. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 03:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

And typical of the really funny stuff, some humorless user has nommed it for deletion! What's next? My userpage on the Concordeism (read this, BZuk!) or Shazaam-5209 TigerCobra? - BilCat (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• You forgot your other essay... the world according to Wikipedia? Another thing, it doesn't mean that I'm not taking notice when you complain to me about something (referring to the amphib vessel article), I'm observing quietly in the noisy background until I gather enough evidence to either take action or make a statement. Peace, out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 02:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad you noticed it! It's more of a parable than satire like the other two, and less overtly funny. I know you're watching, adn that you'll help if you can. Sometimes you can't, for various reasons, and I understand that too. And I don't mind the (private) rebukes either! "Faithful are the wounds of a friend". I have a feeling than MMN's enablers never called him down when he needed it, or he may never have gotten to thes point. - BilCat (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

User:208.127.239.5

I have reported that IP to WP:AN3. I will need your help here to get that IP blocked. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 01:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm at the point of walking away from the whole issue. Gimetoo is an experianeced user, and he seems to be at~ the point of exhaustion witht he user also. I'd give the IP just a little more rope, and see what happens. Btw, WP:AN3 doesn't seem to get much trafic. If the user's behavior re: POINT continues to worsen, AP:ANI gets more admin trafic. - BilCat (talk)

I've now disengaged from interaction with the IP, aside from any ANI or such filings that may be made, especially on the issue of hounding, which may become a problem. - BilCat (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

His latter comments here are definitely getting more uncivil. We'll just give him a little more rope, and see what happens. - BilCat (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

P & W R-2180

G'day from Oz; I am just wondering what is the rationale for splitting the R-2180 article in two. Notwithstanding the different names it doesn't seem meaty enough to require the split, especially considering how many variants there are of the R-1830 and R-2800. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I know, and I considered that. When I had created the original article, there were so few sources available that I just made one article for both types, not really knowing how closely related they were or were not. However, the book The Engines of Pratt & Whitney: A Technical History treats them as separate engines, and that is what I relied on in my decision. (If you love aeroengines and aviation history, that's a great book to read! Much of it is based on info from the P&W archives, and it covers both the piston and jet engine eras in good detail.)

The reason I did it without discussion was that I didn't think anyone else would care, or was even watching these minor P&W engine articles. However, if you want us to reconsider the spilt, I've no problem with that, even stating that a consensus be required to affirm the split, meaning a no-consensus would require re-merging the articles. I'm certainly not trying to exert ownership over the article because I created them. - 06:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah no worries; I came across it because I keep an eye on the new articles sub-page on the Project page, patrolling for socks of Ryan kirpatrick. If they are treated as different engines in the source, no dramas. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Btw, that guy can do good work, so I don't understand why he doesn't put the effort he makes in creating socks towards obeying policies and guidelines. (He reminds me of those students in schools who spend hours implementing complex methods of cheating, rather than just trying to learn the material!) Anyway, I do wish the-powers-that be would allow some range blocks to put this guy out of commision. They make us waste a lot of effort enforcign policies they create, but then hamstring our efforts with silly restrictions on what we can do to fight back. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Japanese aeroengines

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I will do what I can to add the template if I find it is missing. Here are a couple of thoughts in a similar vein: Do you think a template for IJN engines is needed as well? How about a template for the unified system that uses Ha numbers under a standard system? Lastly, what do you think about reorganizing the two Japanese engine lists (that do overlap to a small degree) into one list? I would be happy to dig into it. Regards, Buster40004 Talk 03:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, so go for it. - BilCat (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The "Unified system" started in 1944, assigning Ha numbers based on engine type and size of cylinder. Radial engines were [Ha-3X]-11, with the X being the cylinder size code number. The "-11" is first model with bo revisions, much like previous systems. This new system encompasses all engines, so the existing engines could have as many as four names - factory experimental, IJN, IJA Ha, and Unified [Ha-XX]. Regards, Buster40004 Talk 04:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on the navy template. I'm still learning. I have created the Unified template and an article of all of the Japanese engines are designated. See Japanese aircraft engine identification systems for how the Unified system works, near the bottom of the page. Regards, Buster40004 Talk 05:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem, and I'm happy to help out in any way. It takes awhlie to learn all the intricate ins and outs of WP's formatting and writing styles, but other editors will step in and make (usually) constructive changes. Feel free to ask, either me or one of the other WP:AIR project editors, if you have questions on why something was changed, or need help in any way on WP. - BilCat (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the title change on the unified template, yes, it looks and sounds right. One detail on the Unified system - not all of the original Ha-XXX engine were included. I am working on a list of the ones that were renamed right now, and I will get you a copy of my list, if you want one. Regards, Buster40004 Talk 21:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

737 wheel doors

Did Ken get me mixed up with you? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC).

• Most likely yes, he's done it to Fnlayson as well. Something is not right with the poor bugga. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 02:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It sure seems that way! - BilCat (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah one Bill or another, its all the same! ;) - Ahunt (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

He's lumped us all together as some multi-head monster. ;) It reminds me of the monster from Greek mythology (I think) where you cut off one of its heads and 2 heads grow back in its place. (Can't remeber its name) -Fnlayson (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hydra! He does seems to have lost it since I reverted his uncited addition to the VC-25 page. - BilCat (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, thanks! It most certainty seems that way. :( -Fnlayson (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

He totally misunderstood your comments on your talk page re: the VC-25, and construed that to mean that I had edited the 737 page. I don't know why he's having trouble comprehending what we write, or understanding edit summaries, but it is becoming problematic. At least Sarek is watching the saga.. - BilCat (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm watching Talk:Airco DH.9A#Internal bomb bay etc with interest to see when my name comes up, since I've never edited the article or its talk page. :) All I'll say here is that someone needs to read the sources Ken is citing. - BilCat (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Walk away Bill, if he's a fraud, he'll be exposed soon enough and like I've said before, this is no different from "Give 'em enough rope, and they'll hang themselves." On another note, this other editor I'm about to mentioned is so full of it that I have no words to describe him. For someone who's been registered since 2004, he is one lousy actor, being so "ignorant" of WP:Verifiability#Self-published sources, WP:No original research#Synthesis of published material that advances a position and WP:Be bold#...but please be careful on the page of Pilatus PC-21. Btw, I'll be on vacation with effect from 1 to 14 September, take care of yourself, 'ya hear? Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I am already sitting this one out. I don't think he's making things up, but he often has unique POV intepretations of what is there, straying into synthesis, along with picking one source over all others. I'll keep an eye on PC-21, and call in the big guns if it keeps up, esp on 3RR. - BilCat (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

747 Dreamlifters

Bill, there are two 747 Dreamlifters here at the Huntsville Airport on Intermodal Center (freight) side. One has been here since middle of last week and the 2nd one here since Sunday. They are getting away from Hurricane Irene. I guess they would be in or going through Charleston otherwise. It can be difficult to get a good view of them from the road, but maybe I can take a decent picture of of one or both of them. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Good luck on the photos. - BilCat (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

PS, do you think Boeing 747 Dreamlifter would be a better name for the article? - BilCat (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's been named Dreamlifter for at least 3 years now. That has to be a more common than LCF at this stage. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Concur. - BilCat (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, Boeing has gotten board aproval for the reengined 737. My predictions of a new design were wrong, but given the bad ecoomy and the recent problems with the 787 and 747-8, it's understandable why Boeing is taking this route. They seem to be calling it the 737 New Engine Family, and FlightGlobal is using "737NE" for it here. It's probably time to start considering a new article, but for now, deatials should probably go to the 737NG page. - BilCat (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong again! It's the Boeing 737 MAX! I did think it was a bit odd that Beoing would call it the "NE", which is so close to "neo". - BilCat (talk)

• Hopefully the reason for MAX name. Does somebody always have to create an article like this so early? -Fnlayson (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they do have to create an article every time: That's what "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" means. In practice, at least. - BilCat (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, it's "MAX" in all caps, as opposed to "neo" in no caps. Vewwy intwesting! - BilCat (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Gotta be different. They couldn't use just 1 capital letter, like Max. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't you just love this kitten?

Okay, I'm going to go offline for the next 14 days but still I just can't resist tickling you somewhat hence the kitty kat. Please take good care of yourself, you hear? Warmest regards.

Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Kyushu naming

Wondering why you changed the name to use diacritical marks when the page for the city the company was named for lacks them, and none of the published sources I have ever seen (including the magazine published in Japan) uses them? Cheers.NiD.29 (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Because that's the way it's written in all the other Kyushu aircraft articles on WP, and the Kyushu company article. I felt we should be consistent. - BilCat (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Whittman-Lewis

Don't. Just don't. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

As you are learning for yourself, Ken is quick to call edits he disagrees with "false". I've since de-watchlisted that article, and I'll try to steer clear of Ken as much as possible from this point on. - BilCat (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Air Jamaica 747

File:Air Jamaica Boeing 747-100 Fitzgerald.jpg here is one of the pics of the Air Jam 747. Cheers --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 09:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Dc-8 for you. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 14:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much!! - BilCat (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

MD Helicopters MH-6 Little Bird

This was an AWB general fix rather than anything I specifically did. I'll keep a closer eye out for that sort of potential problem. Are categories with that sort of name going to be changed from hyphens to dashes in due course? Colonies Chris (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Muchas gracias, merci, vielen Dank and many thanks for your trust and voting me into the team of coordinators. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Trollish ball carrier

• If the ball carrier wants trouble, leave him be, Bugs will see through it soon enough and take the necessary step later. For now, simply ignoring him is the best (per WP:DENY) unless he starts to make vandalism edits. As Milton Hay of Springfield heard Lincoln speak offhand a rule or maxim in politics. Hay later passed it on to Joseph Fifer of Bloomington who found it so simple, so nicely singsong, that he couldn't forget it: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool ALL of the people ALL of the time." And, “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”, as quoted by Albert Einstein. Embolden and empower that smartass, that way he won't be complaining against us when he fails. Best and out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

He replaced Groucho Marx! That can't be allowed. Ever. :) After all, Groucho Marx once shot an elephant in his pajamas, though he didn't know how the elephant got into his pajamas. - BilCat (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Bugs took care of it, so LL2 might have to go back to sucking-up to Jimbo again to get his daily allotment of attention. As Groucho said may not have said, "Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana." :) - BilCat (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Nah... he's like a horse gnat I once mentioned on BB's talk page. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• On another note, I noticed a number of Admin likes to wear tight breeches, ala Bee Gees style! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Huh?? - BilCat (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• What do you by "huh??" You ever heard how the Bee Gees sing? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• - BilCat (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ken

I just noticed your question on Sarek's Talk page. Ken didn't cite any sources in 2008 for Kokosing Gap Trail. He offered up a few explanations on his talk page of where he might have gotten it (at the same time claiming he wrote it) before that access was blocked - if you haven't looked in on it lately you might check that. But all of this is, I think, moot at this point, it being pretty clear that whatever else may have happened, he was not telling the truth when he claimed to have composed the material independently in 2008. I'm not sure how he'll get his editing privileges back at this point - he'd have to come clean on that, and then make it clear that he really understands the copyright policy and intends to abide by it. JohnInDC (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I was watching the whole thing; he went from having no clue, to having negative clue, to having his negative clue gone plaid. To be blunt, if he truly believed what he was saying was true, he should be getting help, not editing Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's nice to see WP:ROPE work out in the end. It took awhile, but in this case, barring a complete mea culpa, he appears to have finally worn out his welcome. I can't say I'll miss him at all, as it was a major effort riding herd over his edits. Thnks to all who finially helped to bring this situation to a head. - BilCat (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

He seemed unable to grasp any of the most basic WP principles & procedures - reliable sourcing, no original research, edit summaries, formatting multiple references - despite repeated requests and attempts by others to help. He could probably have lurched along like that for quite some time, but copyright policy isn't just a matter of poor form or inconvenience, and when he failed to (or chose not to) grasp it, it was really only a matter of time. There too it was not for want of patient explanation. It will be interesting to see what the WP:CCI turns up. JohnInDC (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, as one of the repeated requesters, I can vouch for that! I did attempt to help him in the beginning, but after awhile, I mainly focused on cleaning up his damage. He didn't appreciate my efforts, which I admit did become heavy-handed. However, some of those who objected to my approach, including Sarek, eventually were even more heavy-handed than I was in dealing with Ken. It was clear that Ken was unwilling or unable, for whatever reason, to learn from his mistakes. - BilCat (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Facepalm ... Isn't it ironic that it always come a full circle with regards to the complaint about heavy handedness from other quarters? If only they had read WP:OWB... Cheers and have a great weekend~! WP:Citation expander is still down and I can't do anything to article pages without it~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hard being omniscient in a wiki-world of know-nothings! ;) - BilCat (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Identity crisis: Cobra is a Viper and Apache is a Cobra

• Who'd knew?! See the note I provided in Boeing AH-64 Apache#Israel, methinks its time to brush up on my Hebrew. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

So...Cobras aren't Cobras? ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, that would seem to be the case, see Bell AH-1 Cobra#Israel, Israelis named their Cobras as "Tzefa" (צפע), Hebrew for Viper, think that could also be the reason why Flayer got it mixed up. Like I've said, I got to start brushing up on my Hebrew. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 05:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, maybe you could educate me on what Group=N means, see your edit. Is this suppose to be a ref? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

the group=N coding allows you to add footnotes, which you can "nest" references into - FMA IAe 33 Pulqui II shows quite a bit of footnoting in that fashion, for instance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Bushranger, I couldn't have said it better myself. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Difference between the A-models and D-models

• On another note, this edit of mine might give someone a pointy thing to think about, puns not intended. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There's another difference, IIRC, and that is the tube mounted on the top of the left engine pod on the D-models, which is not on the older As. - BilCat (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• I concur but provided the photos can show them up for us to see, otherwise we won't know since we can't tell from the camera angle at times and alot of the times most photos has obscured view of the pitot tube. The main-rotor hub is another thing altogether, the only way we can't see it is when viewed from the bottom. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

But it's clearly visible in the photo in dispute, which is what I was refering to. Also, you probably need a ref for the note itself. - BilCat (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Original research but the AH-64Ds have 7xx serial numbers and are operated by 113 sqn and the AH-64As are 8xx and 9xx and are operated by 190sqn, refer http://www.scramble.nl/mil/3/iaf/orbat.htm for pictures of squadron badges. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Air Force 2

In order to prevent an Edit War from starting between us regarding Air Force 2, i am supplying my reasons for the removal of the image of former US Vice President Dick Cheney arriving in the Middle East from the article. If you do not mind, please read this and this, both give some valid reason of my removal of the image. If it is of any value to you, i am searching for a more suitable image to replace it. Dusty777 (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to discuss specific article problems on the article's talk page. ALso, if you truly didn;t want a revert war, you wouldn't have reverted me. - BilCat (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I posted on your talk page for a couple reasons:

1. Easier then posting on the talk page of the article and your maybe not seeing nor caring about the alert on your watchlist.

2. Since you and I and are the more involved parties, i posted here to give you (since you have twice reverted my edits) my reasons for the removal of the picture from the article.

Thought it would keep communications easier. In the future, i will post on the talk page of the article. By the way, thanks for starting the discussion there already. Dusty777 (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Curious indeed

I was expecting it, likely to be one User:Alex79818, currently blocked for sock puppetry. One to watch. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

And blocked for username violation. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't unconstructive

This really irritates me. There is no cite for that incident. It didn't happen, so far as I can tell. So I remove it. And people like you don't take the time to look at what I actually did. Screw you 86.176.108.87 (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You obviously know how to use edit summaries. Use descriptive and polite summaries when you edit articles next time, as WP has a block on mind-reading. "uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" is typical of vandals, and really not helpful in anyway to let people know you are making a serious edit. - BilCat (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

In fact [5] the incident did occur, although a cite is still needed to give the full details.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Nigel - I'm not surprised it actually happened. - BilCat (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I've read about this incident before - but it's been years so I have no idea whatsoever where I read of it. :( - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sock???

• Another strange thing, is it me or does it seem like Flyingalbatross (talk · contribs) is starting to reek of the BANNED Indian editor - Chanakyathegreat (talk · contribs)??? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

He's definitely getting annoying with all the photo changes, but I haven't trawled through his other edits to check for the same style of POV. FA does seem familiar, though, and might be worth a checkuser to determine if they aren't another banned user. - 09:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

From a cursory glance at their user contributions, they do seem to be an experienced WP user, despite the user account being created in July 2011, though most of their edits seem to be aditions/subtractions of photos. - BilCat (talk) 09:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Well, he's been staying low under our radar for so long and never did we suspect that he could be a sock. Who should we bring this up to this time? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't generally deal with the Checkuser admins at all, so that's your call - I have no clue! You might check Chanakya's contributions to see if he had a similar editing style on photos, and if he does, then a checkuser might be actionable. I'm trying to go to bed at the moment, but not having ,uch luck, but I hope to be asleep soon! - BilCat (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Coincidentally, his other sock just croaked~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Have not got time to check at the moment but the flikr account http://www.flickr.com/photos/42955882@N02/with/4000393484/ the naval images are from has been used before by other editors with similar interests. Clear case of flikr washing as I am sure some of those images have been uploaded and deleted as copyvios before. MilborneOne (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• So, is it time to review those three image files he uploaded? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• After going through all the edits carefully, it is my opinion that Flyingalbatross might instead be Shivanshkhare (talk · contribs), another problematic editor with a long history of copyvios. As for the BANNED idiot, he likes to argue a lot and this modus operandi is not typical of him, he's never been known to be subtle in his choice of words when confronted by us before. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I see you've come across the same editor I did. He's uploaded a lot of images claiming as a FUR that they're released for promotional reasons. Checking the originating website this isn't the case, with the copyright statement stating all rights reserved. I ran this by User:Moonriddengirl and the FUR is invalid. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Growingnuerons has pooped up to claim it is Chanakyathegreat, not User:Taurgo. Morons. - BilCat (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Doesn't matter now gentlemen, I've jumped onto the SPI bandwagon due to the obvious... this is going to be interesting. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Gentlemen, the preliminary checkuser results just came out, both User:Flyingalbatross and User:Growingnuerons are indeed the socks of that BANNED editor. On the other hand, User:Taurgo has two sleeper accounts but is otherwise not related to the above but I guess the Checkuser could be wrong because per WP:DUCK, Taurgo's and the BANNED editor's area of interest is too coincidentally similar that I'm not comfortable to AGF despite the initial results. As for User:Shivanshkhare, it is now a cold trail, unless he returns to edit. Anyhow, as Bill sums it best: "Good riddance to bad rubbish~!" --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better myself! ;) Anyway, we've learned to trust our guts when sock-huning, and we're right more than we're wrong. Never mess with the A-T.E.A.M.! - BilCat (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Fishing hunting time again~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Remember me asking you about User:Touchtheskywithglory? Well, he's been blocked for being a likely sock of Chanakyathe-not-so-great. The nose knows! - BilCat (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Me thinks he ought to change his nick to "Down the hellhole with a finger on standby". --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I was definitely suspicious of the user name, as it implies a strong pro-Indian POV. There's no place for that sort of bias on WP, and Chanka was full of that. And full of it! ;)- BilCat (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Facepalm ... Hence, the newly minted moniker - "Down the hellhole with a finger on standby", if you know what I mean. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 15:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've noticed that the Indian and Chinese aircraft articles tend to attract the fanboys in droves and they almost always wind up in a "My aircraft's bigger than yours!" match. Speaking of which, I'm soon going to see about removing a bit of "mine's badder" from a couple of Chinese aircraft articles, if they get me for it, it was nice knowing y'all! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Swift&silent‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Strange things happen everyday, this guy above is either a sock or a meatpuppet of "Chanak-the-loser", account registered in 2009 and suddenly came out of nowhere going to the extend of instigating a newbie - DBigXray‎ (talk · contribs), to act so radically on India-Pakistan related article pages. More cleanup crews required~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 02:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The quacking is indeed strong in this one! SPI time? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Any chance you might want to wave your magic wand? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 03:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Abracaduckra! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm Chanka-the-not-so-great has been quite busy. I always thought his was a patriotic POVer, but this is ridiculous. He never earned my respect anyway, but it's nice to have it proven how much of a Indo-patriotic jerk he actually was, and that our instincts were right all along. The nose knows! :) - BilCat (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Bill. IMO, the guy was obviously abused when young, kicked around from Islamabad to New Dehli and maybe back again. Anyway, I wouldn't be too surprised to know that the guy was trying to instigate something here or changing the world's opinion, despite after the dust has settled and history was written down by actual historians. Sad wanker, really. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Things pop up in odd places...

...the India vs Pakistan "mine's bigger" thing spilled over to KAI T-50 Golden Eagle today, where Tejas was removed from the "see also" in favor of the JF-17... Facepalm - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

And now apparently it is the great crusade to remove the JF-17 Thunder from the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft's see-also section...on the basis the JF-17 is a "Third Generation Aircraft"...aaargh. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Combat history of AGM-114 Hellfire: no consensus

Hello BilCat,
I recognize that there is a lack on consensus on this section. But why not to keep the referenced facts (that were on the page for a long time) in the section up to reach a consensus? Doing the other way around (i.e. removing facts and wait - indefinitely ?- for a consensus) is a convenient way to censor facts.
79.89.15.71 (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"Doing it the other way around" is how WP works, like it or not. If you really interested in working within that system, you'll be patient. But if you think your "facts" are so important that you don't need to follow the rules, then of course you think you're being censored! That's noy my problem. - BilCat (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you really mean that if I do not like some facts I should remove them? I hope WP does not works like this...

79.89.15.71 (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• No. I was referring to whether or not you like WP policies, not the content of articles. The reasons why the content was removed have been explained on that talk page. Your reason for restoring the content was "For one week, contributor has not justified its removal of facts. Please, go to discussion page before another attempt". That's not a justifiable reason to restore content that was removed. - BilCat (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If "facts" are not supported by an inline citation to a reliable source, they are subject to removal from the article at any time. Tagging them with {{citation needed}} for a time first is preferred, of course. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

See above, and also see User:Nickpullar's comments at Talk:AGM-114 Hellfire#Combat history: keeping facts and removing political issues, if you haven't already. :) - BilCat (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

To The Bushranger: I was, indeed, talking about facts referenced with reliable sources (otherwise, I would not have raised any issue). To BilCat: is it WP policy to allow users to remove (properly) referenced facts and then say they will discuss later and do not do it? I thought WP policy was more like "discussion first, changes later"...

147.99.222.244 (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The info was discussed in depth last year, and also this month. WP is an encyclopedia, not a exhaustive compendium of all information on all topics. At some point, you have to accept that consensus to include in-depth coverage on uses in certain locations in an articel that is a summary on a missle isn't appropriate. It's far too much information for that tht type of article. There are already articles about the actions of Isreali forces, and there may even be articles on these specific events. If you can find them, then linking to these articels in that section might be appropriate. Add them to the talk page. - BilCat (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the discussion was long. But, as you mentioned just before, no consensus was found. And now, you are writing I should accept the consensus... A bit confusing, isn't it?

Recently, the erased facts were removed because they were about civilians, and, "as everybody knows weapons kill civilians too"... I do not see any issue related to Israel or whatever country. Many articles are much longer than "this type of article" (whatever it means), so I do not see how keeping those facts (just a few lines long) out of the article helps improving it.

Also, considering all the anonymous attempts to remove these facts, it looks like the reason to keep them out of the article may be discomfort with history.

79.89.15.71 (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:UNDUE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that weapons killing civilians isn't an unusual thing, not are protests against such killings. A single event is not generally notable unless the person killed is notable. Unknown 12-year-old and 16-year-old boys aren't notable to an ecyclopedia. A leader of a coutriy or political faction is to a degre, and that's why the event was mentioned, but not in detail. - BilCat (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello.

Thank you The Bushranger for pointing me to the WP:UNDUE. This rule (as many rules of WP) is mostly common sense (also having them written is very useful). Indeed, this section specifically mentions that the prevalence of a viewpoint among Wikipedia editors is not a good criteria. So, reasons like "it is against Israel (or whatever country)" or "I feel like keeping civilians' deaths out" are not to be considered in the decision (I mention this point because the discussion page of the article is full of such kind of "reasons").

To BilCat: thank you for clarifying your position. I agree with you that, in general, prominent persons should deserve more space than anonymous. But if the case of the ambulance should not be mentioned, why does the case of the Cessna 152 aircraft should deserve a full paragraph? To me, this paragraph looks more like a anecdote (or even a commercial for the manufacturer). However, at least at current stage in the development of the article, I do not think it should be removed (see last paragraph of this post).

The sentence "As with all weapon systems, attacks of this type have also resulted in civilian deaths" hides the fact that the civilians' deaths were not only passers-by. This was previously exemplified by the case of the ambulance. But since this fact has been removed ("waiting for a consensus" ;-) ), who will know the Hellfire was used directly against civilians? And how to get a consensus on a subject if part of the data are hidden? This may be a bad commercial for the company or a specific country (Israel in this case), but I guess you will agree with me WP contributors should not be concerned about it.

Finally, many WP articles start small, improve progressively, and, when considered too long, may be divided into several articles. The present article is rated of C quality (which I would translate into "poor quality"). If we deliberately keep information out, how could we have an article of good quality, or even, one day, a full article dedicated to the combat history of Hellfire weapon? This is one on my main reasons to think that, at the current stage, facts should be keep in the section (whatever the country, etc.;) - as long as reliable references are included, of course.

79.88.183.116 (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: 136.152.178.121

Hey, thanks for the anti-vandalism efforts! Just so you know, that's a dynamically allocated university IP address (Cal, as it turns out), so it probably didn't get to who you wanted (it hit me, as it turns out). But good on you :) Kyle Barbour 00:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Totally ignore the above. I just saw the timestamp — a month ago. Sorry! Kyle Barbour 00:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Wee Curry Monster talkis wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

• Same here, wishing all a merry christmas~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Thanks, all. And Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to y'all. - BilCat (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year BilCat and BillZ. Let me know if you need anything, BilC. Take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Republic of China article

Since you mentioned about the Republic of China in your user page, I guess you are interested to share your insights at Talk:Republic of China#Requested Move (February 2012). Thanks for your attention. 61.18.170.23 (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Uh, no thanks! That sort of "short, easy-to-follow discussion" (not!) is one of the reasons I retired from WP, and why I'll stay retired. :) - BilCat (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Say it isn't so ... (with apologies to Shoeless Joe Jackson). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC).

April 2012

Is the old scalliwag back??? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC).

If you mean me, no, sorry, just a long-range lurker at this point. - BilCat (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Same here, man... will be very busy until after June. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Bzuk, this is why I'm still retired! How someone who claims to have actually published books can be so adverse to the editing of his work is beyond me. Unless he's just a self-published hack who doesn't actually use a professional editor. ;) - BilCat (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• The guy is a self-important professional opera singer from Nipples~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Bill, don't you miss this fun? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC).

Yes, like I miss a root canal! ;) - BilCat (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

the defiance continues. I'm glad it's no longer my tooth! ;) - BilCat (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Me three~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 05:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you've retired...

...and also sorry that I didn't see your second reply to me until now.

As for the Jamaican Patois project, my initial thought upon seeing the project page was "Laad Gad!" My second thought is that I have hardly ever seen written patois apart from Louise Bennett poems, hence the shock.

Is there a standardized spelling? "Jumiekan" seems rather strange, I would more have expected it to be "Jumaykan", as the vowel sounds more like a long "a" than a long "e". The "Ju-" part doesn't seem right, either, from what I've heard it's generally pronounced "Ja-", especially by Rastas, who believe "Jah mek ya".

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Blue Thunder (film) and Talk:Blue Thunder

Hi B, check the talk page out, I don't know enough about the film or the links mentioned but it seemed to be a drastic cut of nearly all the external links. Aren't some of them useful? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC).

Oh dear! And I love how he assumes so much good faith! Not! ;) His best line? "Nothing much beyond what's in the article, except a bunch of pictures..." Uh yeah, those pics are probally why the links were there in the first place. Duh. It's stupidity like this that keeps me retired. - BilCat (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

NEWSY/UNDUE Hcobb

• For the donkey times, see how Hcobb got a bruising at Talk:CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder#Richard Aboulafia. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Again, the shameless one has taken the credit from other people. FWIW, to puncture the skin of an elephant... we need an elephant gun and I'm really itching to send him to WP:Requests for comment/User conduct. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The elephant gun would probably be more effective! Or, you could troll the Chinese sources for a rebuttal.  :) BilCat (talk) 05:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Trust me, he doesn't want to open the pandora box... being swamped by the avalanche of replies, he'll be reeling from his squealing and oinking from the boinking~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Blade twist

In reading this I had to drop you a note to point out that in fact blade twist is a characteristic built into the rotor blade itself and not the hub-mounting angle. Blade twist is similar to washout angle built into a fixed wing aircraft wing and for similar reasons. This is a bit technical, but does explain it. - Ahunt (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's kinda what I thought it meant, though without the technical know-how behind it all. :) - BilCat (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• He's just been blocked, indefinitely. Facepalm ... --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

And blocked from editing his own talk to boot! Facepalm As to this jewel of yours and the like, they seem to be just "pearls before swine", and just fodder for TTT's anger to regurgitate back. At worst, I think we'll end up with a new IP vandal out of all this. - BilCat (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well, it is a chance we have to take sometimes. As much as I'm doing my best to assume good faith, if he doesn't return in kind then all I have left to say is this... if a pig wants to wallow in the mud, who are we stop it? And even after we have clean it up with a good scrub or wash, dressed it up in the finest garb available, in the end if it still choses to return to wallow in the mud, who are we to stop it? He, has a choice, nobody stick a gun his way to force him to go to the dark side. FWIW, there's a notable quote on the article page of Ultimax 100 that sums up what I have to say at the end of this mess. As a matter of fact, these POV-crusader just won't take no from us as an answer, even after we've told them umpteen times not to do this or that, they would do the same predictable thing again. Nothing for us to gloat about (their sins can be a joke but who are we to stop them from becoming one), we just have to learn from their mistake and pray we don't become infallible like their persona or what they try to potray themselves as. Peace, out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Makes no sense...

• Douglas A-4 Skyhawk#Aircraft on display
• Bill, so if Japan can be listed in that section when the actual operator is USMC, then what about France? They have the two of the retired A-4SUs on display in their aeronautical museum but are listed instead under Singapore in the section below. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I understand your point, but I think it make sense to list the aircraft by the place they are displayed, not by who operated the actual airframe. I know of a AH-1G Cobra that is diplayed at a private museum in Georgia (USA) about to the US Army Cavalry. The actual airframe is from the Spanish Navy. So should we list it under Spain? That would be too confusing. Not all airframes have a known history. - BilCat (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Listing them by where they are on display is more straightforward. And it makes more sense than grouping by version, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. Needs to be based on display site. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Apologies for the late reply, been busy in the shop and I do see the point now, thank you guys for weighing in. Also, will make the changes accordingly, cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem! It's too bad that other users can't be as agreeable when editors disagree with them! :) - BilCat (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Supreme facepalm of destiny... --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

RFB Fantrainer

• Bill, this is one neat little prop trainer that will blow your mind when you see it fly, plus the cutaway diagram I found is so amazingly detailed that my jaws are still locked down. Question now being... are there any restrictions to link WP to these cutaway images on them article pages, like what I've done before? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Less retired

Good to see you around more, i.e. semi-retired vs. fully retired. Hope you had a good Thanksgiving. Take care! -Fnlayson (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

A-7 Corsair.

There is no need for a citation there about turbo fans vs turbojets or turbo fans with rehead, it is fact, look up specific fuel consumption or study aeronautical engineering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.255.208.128 (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

An aeronautical engineering degree isn't a prerequisite to having common knowledge. - BilCat (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

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

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Snoozlepet (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Merry Christmas to you and yours also. - BilCat (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Pilatus Aircraft, Projects

Hello , the reference is from the Book Pilatus Flugzeuge 1939 – 1989 von Roland Eichenberger. its unfortunatly only in german, about the PC-24 it is from the Newpaper of the Region stans. See also the german version of wikipedia about Pilatus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.5.216.100 (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Mexico as a potential F-16 operator

Hi Bill, Following up on some vandalism to the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon operators article I noticed a comment by you from way back in 2009 noting that Mexico shouldn't be listed in the article unless some reliable sources are provided. Mexico is now listed again as a potential F-16 operator (apparently on the basis of a 2003 offer of surplus USAF aircraft), but without sources. Should this be removed? Regards, and happy new year. Nick-D (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I removed it again. It sounds plausible as written, but given the cry woolf tendency I noted in my comment, I think we can wait for a reliable source, esp since the order fell though, per the claim.- BilCat (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that Bill. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The Aviationist

I believe that edit history and talk was where I saw David Cenciotti for the first time. It appeared that he had noted that the RB-57 had been involved in Afghanistan missions, an event that was later confirmed by other sources. It appears that the "Aviationist" acts as sort of clearinghouse for current aviation topics. I haven't been able to find anything wrong with any of his accounts; they all seem to be verifiable. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC) FWiW, I really have "no horse in the race" and perhaps the site can be vetted by a discussion at the WP:Aviation group? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Chattanooga Steam

Thanks for prodding this back in 2008. It was removed by an IP with no edit summary. You may want to take it to the Notability noticeboard or AfD to get it resolved. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Feels good to be back

• Hey Bill, how you doing? Sorry, I've been away for so long. BTW, that Sheffield spammer is now on the chopping board of WP:AIV. Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back, Dave. Btw, Death of Shane Todd might be of interest to you, and it's up for AFD. Cheers. - BilCat (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Wow! Hot potato there, another classic case of WP:Controversy. Count me out please, because common sense is in short demand here on WP, sometimes. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I thought you might be interested since the event occurred in Singapore, and you might have had a local take on its notability. I'm staying away from it myself! - BilCat (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Off the record, I would have voted DELETE! (Read also: WP:What Wikipedia is not.) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail~!

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

--Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 03:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

F-5 Historical Significance

Hello BilCat:

I can quote two indirect and two direct sources on the historical significance of the F-5. These are:

1. "Comparing the Effectiveness of Air to Air Fighters: F-86 to F-18", a very thorough and professional 159 page paper by Pierre Sprey. Sprey was one of the primary architects of the F-16 and was lead definer of the A-10 Warthog.

2. "F-5 Freedom Fighter", a one hour History Channel documentary that is part of the "Great Planes" series.

3. "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War", by Robert Coram.

4. "The Mind of War: John Boyd and American Security", by Grant Hammond.

The books on Boyd rightly describe what a great job Col. Boyd did in inventing energy maneurverability theory and driving the definition and adoption of the F-16. But, in their zeal to portray Boyd's greatness they fall a little short on explaining how the F-5 was based on most of the same principles as the F-16, while predating the F-16 by 15 years. It was really the F-5 and its designers that deserve original credit for the modern supersonic light fighter concept more so than the famous "Fighter Mafia" in the Pentagon in the 1970's.

So, how do we go about giving them proper credit?

Regards, Farron — Preceding unsigned comment added by FarronDacus (talk • contribs) 03:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Dear FD, please note that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, we are not here to give credit to people, be they dead or alive. Whatever we write and present in here must adhere to 1.) WP:Notability, 2.) WP:Verifiability, & 3.) WP:Neutral point of view. The last point is something that we wish to highlight to you, especially on the section → WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight ←, for which I have left a video link on your user talk page to easier reading. Let us know if you need any other help when you're done watching. Best and regards. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 03:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

MiG-21

• IMO, I think this claim is true, I remember reading somewhere about this and then later watch it on History channel's documentary, trouble is I can't recall the book but I can tell you it was History (TV channel)'s Dogfights (TV series) I watched it again recently. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 04:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• I FOUND IT~! Read Munir Redfa. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 04:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Email down?

Is your email working? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I just got your email. I'll reply to it. - BilCat (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Replied. - BilCat (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

A-7

Hi ... the way the introduction reads is that it *replaced* those planes... which we both know it didn't. The A-7D was used in CSAR and CAS, and replaced those planes in those roles, The article introduction needs to be re-edited for clarity... However, I'm pretty sure that the F-100s were alredy sent back to the states by late 1972 anyway when we arrived at Korat..,. I remember those days well (why I have a certain fondness for this plane), I was with the 354th TFW during that time, and we also operated a small turn-around point at Bien Hoa AB also until Feb 73. I was a very young airman at the time and we had a few WRSK kit bins in a hangar there for emergency spare parts as well as a few crew chiefs. take care :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

While I understand what you mean, I think it depends on how one looks at it. I'll try to respond with more from my laptop later. - BilCat (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Bell P-39 Airacobra

You know with all the controversy over the date of the first flight, didn't anyone notice that it is called the P-39? Seriously, the Aeroweanie has some compelling evidence, not the least of which is a Bell company photograph of the XP-39 that is dated October 1, 1938. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Coinicidence either way, as the numbers were assigned in order, but cute nonetheless! The NYT article certainly adds support for the 1939 date, and AW found that too. - BilCat (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

PS, did the mail come through? - BilCat (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. FWiW, we've had a very recent death in the family, so things are not quite working well right now, in both a physical and metaphysical sense. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Please accept my deepest condolences to you and your family. May God be with you all. - BilCat (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You need to read WP:BRD

Your initial removal was reverted per WP:BRD as such the long standing version of the article must be the one that is left standing until a discussion is concluded. Secondly on the talk page of the MOS it is explained that leagues with teams in two countries are considered international competitions. There was a huge discussion on it. It is the whole reason that sentence exists. -DJSasso (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Three days is not a "long standing version of the article". You are edit warring, and you need to stop. Please discuss this on the NHL talk page, and gain a consensus THERE to keep the flags, including specific links to any claimed consensuses. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

No your initial removal. Prior to your initial removal it had been there years. -DJSasso (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Not on the NHL page. - BilCat (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Prior to your removal it had been there since Aug 28th, 2006. Other than the odd day or two where joj has tried to remove it and been reverted. -DJSasso (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know when my "initial removal" was, but it has been several years now, and for the majority of that time, there have been no flag icons in the infobox. - BilCat (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

A discussion has been opened on the NHL talk page. Please make any more comments there. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I should note there is no ill will :) Its just a debate that I've seen go around and around far too many times. -DJSasso (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I take your word for it, and that's why I added the AGF part in my comments on the other page. We can disagree without being disagreeable :) I do think that there are so many exeptions to the no-flags in Infoboxes rule that the guideline is becoming essentially worthless. I would like to see it clarified one way or another. I do believe that guidelines should follow usage, as opposed to policy, which necessarily dictaes usage. However, I also understand that there is a concern for accessibilty for the visually impaired readers, though I'm not sure I understand how this works out with the exceptions! - BilCat (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah its all a big mess really. I agree that the guidelines really should follow usage which in reality is that they are used more often than not. But I agree the accessibility concerns are an issue. Its mostly just the "distracting" arguments that I don't think much of cause that's just a personal opinion on taste or whatever. But I am good with whatever people decide as was done on the baseball page where an actual discussion was held to not use them on that page. -DJSasso (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The use of flag icons in the non-English WPs appears to be very common. Many of the IPs adding the icons are from non-English speaking countries, and may not realize that their use is an issue on ENglish WP. They are used to using them on the WPs in their won languages, and so think they've just been ommitted here. That's often the case on aircraft airticles, where icons are often added to the aircraft infoboxes. - BilCat (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

American

Hi Bilcat, I changed American for US, because American is for both South American and North American. I know that Landsat is a US satelite nor American. I have been just more precise. Isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.163.240.121 (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I know why you changed it, as I'm familiar with the Latin American view on the word "American" in Spanish. However, in English, "American" generally refers to the US, and shouldn't usually be changed. See American (word) for a detailed explanation of the uses in English. - BilCat (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Your out of date with your definition. American in English correctly refers to anyone from the Americas. In uneducated circles your slang definition still applies. Among recently educated your definition is limited and incorrect in academia. You may be marked down on papers for using it in such a conceited manner to think it only applies to U.S. citizens. Definitions and language constantly evolve. Do not be a dino. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.40.160 (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"American" is common usage for citizens and things of the United States here in Australia, and I'm pretty sure that the same is the case in the US and other English-speaking countries. I'm a 30-something who has two degrees from a prestigious university (with a third almost complete) who works in a professional field, so I don't think that your claim that only ill-educated people use this term is at all correct. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The demonym for the United States is "American". If you think that's wrong take it up with common useage. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Most Latin Americans only exposure to English, and the use of America to refer to the US, is through US media and culture. Consequently, they are usually completely unaware of how widespead the usage is throughout the rest of the English-speaking world, and even non-English speaking countries, especially those with ties to the British Commonwealth. With the exception of of most of US academia, which has its collective head so far up its collective butt that they are far out of touch with reality in general, the English language use of America to refer to the US is increasing, not decreasing. Finally, I am surprised at Latin America's continued obsession with using a name for itself that is so associated with European imperialism. As "enlightened" as most of these Latin Americans who oppose calling the US "America" seem to think themselves to be, I would have thought they would have thrown off the yoke of such European domination long ago, and called their continent by a native name! Perhaps they really aren't that progressive after all. Which is actually no surprise to the rest of us! ;) - BilCat (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This edit by US-based IP shows no signs that the user is even aware of the usage in English speaking countries outside of the US. - BilCat (talk) 06:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Merging AAS/HC

Just to clarify real quick, per Help:Merging is the reason I was merging the pages without discussion (not vandalism). The merging help suggests just doing it if you are confident. Anywho, as I was nearing completion I began to think I had it backwards. I totally think they need to be merged, but I think amphibious assault ship need to be a subheading of some type in helicopter carrier's page. Also, if you check out the Navy's official website, helicopter carrier isn't listed. All the 'helicopter carriers' are listed as AAS. What do you think ? EzPz (talk) 06:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I knew it wasn't vandalism, which is why I mentioned BRD in some of the edit summaries. I'd rather they stay separate pages, as I view them as separate though closely-related types, but that's my opinion. I'd suggest added merge headers to both articles, with the discussion at HC, and we'll see where the consensus lies. - BilCat (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. EzPz (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the U.S. Navy doesn't always follow logical naming of ship types, as a note - the littoral combat ship would be called a corvette anywhere else on the planet! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If they called them "covettes", it would confuse our esteemed Congresspersons who would hold hearings on why the Navy needs sportscars. PS, Henry, take your silly musings to the POGO forums. - BilCat (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

NHL franchise in the desert assured for at least 5 more years

I was going to change that too...once I'd finished laughing Taroaldo ✉ 00:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

LOL! Ah, the joys of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. - BilCat (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hope this makes your day!!!

MARINE PETE 18:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, BilCat. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Apologies for the late reply, I've been rather busy with the legal proceedings of my late uncle's estate these few days, hence haven't been online for almost a week now so you'll have to excuse me if I've left somethings out. Best and cheers~! Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)