User talk:BilCat/archive22

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For all you have done over the years for us and especially for our readers! Moxy 🍁 12:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for all your work here, you taught me much. Wish you the best of luck in the future and hope that you will return someday. - Samf4u (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help and efforts here BilCat! Good luck to you. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

It was great working with you. You will be missed. Hope your circumstances allow a return one day! - Ahunt (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping Wikipedia straight, you'll be missed - please check in from time to time. Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for your kind words. I've been checking in at least once a day, as I still read Wikipedia articles in the course of looking up information I come across each day. Right now I'm enjoying seeing issues in articles and knowing I don't have to feel like I have to fix them, especially if it's likely to be contentious. I cleared out my entire watchlist (it was over 30,000), and now I don't have to deal with all daily vandalism and trolling, especially from unaccountable IPs. That's been refreshing! I'm really fed up with the WMF over a number of issues, and as of right now, I don't intend to return full time unless the WMF makes some major changes, which will probably happen right after Hell freezes over. Meaning never. :) - BilCat (talk) 04:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

email me some of the changes. You never know. Andrewa (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Andrewa

@Andrewa: I got your message, but I never did read the proposal. I'm now retired indefinitely, so I didn't see the use. Thanks anyway. - BilCat (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

email me any wisdom you wish to offer. Guaranteed it will be appreciated, and not attributed without your explicit permission. Not guaranteed it will help. The biggest risk in life is to take no risks, that guarantees failure. Guaranteed that it might help. Not guaranteed that we will ever know. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, my idea was really a passing shot on my way out, though I hadn't made my final decision when I first posted it. It's something I had in mind for years, but never put forth until then. B2C's RfC motivated me to go ahead and put the idea out there. I guess I sort of hoped it would get good reception, and thus dissuade me of leaving by giving me.something to hang around for and work towards. The reception it did get certainly didn't inspire me to stay, your comments notwithstanding. So I did take a risk in putting the idea out there in the first place, and hope in the future some of the idea will survive. - BilCat (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

For the public record

I'm sorry to see you're gone. You've been one of the good ones here, & there are few enough of those. No reply needed. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

There are lots of good ones. But BilCat will be missed more than most. (And there are some real duds, and most of us are a bit in between. Inappropriate to ride my particular hobbyhorses here. No reply needed.) Andrewa (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Trek. I do appreciate it. I may be back as a resident wiki-cynic if I'm unable to break the habit, but I doubt that side of me will ever be missed. :) As to hobbyhorses, Andrew, feel free to drop a line to my email if you want to vent. I'll probably vent back. :) - BilCat (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Same goes for me. Now I've actually got my email access again... (BTW, I did finally read your last, from what, 10yr ago? ;p ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 11:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

10 years ago?? I can't remember any emails I sent 10 weeks ago, much less 10 years! :) - BilCat (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

"Resident wiki-cynic" - that is already missed! There is no one filling that role now! - Ahunt (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps there is... See User:Andrewa/The senility of Wikipedia. Perhaps we could start a WikiProject? Or at least have a category:Wikicynicism (I got away with Category:New York City and New York State move discussion pages so anything is possible... I even got thanked for creating it, and it probably helped, people still reinvented the (censored term) but we didn't need to continually reinvent the answers as they were indexed for us in this and other ways). It could be a subcategory of user essays. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Just seeing this. I, for one, will miss you. You were my first introduction to Wikipedia all those years back when I was an IP user. Thank you for showing me what right looks like. Garuda28 (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Have you noticed, Bill, you're getting more attention now than when you were here? (I'm not sure what that means... :P ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC) (FYI, it only seems like 10yrs. :D )

I think it means that absence makes the heart grow fonder, or something like that. :) - BilCat (talk)

Just got back from vacation, to a clusterfuck of epic proportions. And now this. Really sorry to see you go. Hoping you will still have a change of heart, though. You will be missed. Best wishes, El_C 15:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@El C: That clusterfrack is one of the reasons I left, not the incident itself, but fear of the Foundations actions. To indef ban an admin without a hearing of any kind is one thing, but to remove someone based on an anonymous, unreleased complaint, without even stating why, is quite chilling. I've really no issue with the WMF taking a bigger role in how Wikipedia is managed in theory, as they are the owners, and always have been. However, doing things like this in secret isn't encouraging. There are several other reasons I'm not willing to make public at this time, but suffice it to say, I've had enough. I can't see I see returning full time unless major changes are made to how Wikipedia is run and operated. - BilCat (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, hopefully, this incident will prove the anomaly rather than the norm. And hopefully, additional safeguards will be put in place to ensure against another such trainwreck occurring again at some point in the future. I know Jimbo and Doc James are actively working to resolve this crisis, so I would like to give them both a chance to do that before drawing any further long-term conclusions. But the fact that we have lost volunteers over it, partially (final straw) or otherwise, has definitely been a net loss to the project and has gotten me quite concerned and saddened. El_C 02:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I had no knowledge of this incident when I retired, but the incident does illustrate my fears of the Foundation. I do hope it's worked out to the EN.WP community's satisfaction, but that really doesn't have any effect on my other issues. I'd rather not comment any further on this, but feel free to inform me if/when it's resolved. - BilCat (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikinoncynic

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

---

I feel compelled to add, I have faith in the eventual outcome. I think we are already starting to look back at NYRM and think "Were these guys crazy, or was there some other agenda... did one of them maybe just get drunk one night and bet their house that they could prevent the move, and then had to sign up all their friends to save the bet?!" (That would be meatpuppetry of course and could get them all indeffed if proven.)

Similarly, I think one day people will look back and say "They deliberately put articles at ambiguous titles, and somehow thought they were helping readers by that? What were they smoking? Oh, and they thought they needed to avoid one extra mouse click at all costs? Hadn't they ever used a computer themselves?" We shall see. Andrewa (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The NYRM situation definitely needs to be prevented in the future. However, even what is considered ambiguous can be ambiguous, and would probably lead to very long unambiguous tiles! But your proposals could at least lead to movement in the right direction, even if they aren't adopted completely. - BilCat (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes... but the frustrating thing is, how can we avoid it when it's such a bizarre thing in some ways? As I said previously I don't ever expect to understand it.

And it continues to be bizarre. Deliberately having ambiguous article titles is bizarre. Avoiding one more mouse click at all costs is bizarre.

But I still believe that Wikipedia is worth it. Andrewa (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I no longer believe Wikipedia is worth it. An online encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to is a worthy idea, but Wikipedia long ceased to be just that, if that was ever truly what it was intended to be.

It's probably best to move on at this point. I've left for several reasons, disambiguation issues not being one of them, and they aren't likely to ever change. - BilCat (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:Andrewa, despite any issues, Wikipedia is still worth it. So thanks for being part of it; your contributions will live on here for a long time! - Ahunt (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Have a good break. I pray you will have the courage to change what you can, the serenity to accept what you can't, and the wisdom to discern which is which, and that you'll back somewhere someday.

Wikipedia is no more immortal than Kodak once was. I think we underestimate the challenges WMF faces. At least one major power has put a great deal of effort into subverting Wikipedia for propaganda purposes, unsuccessfully on that occasion. (Details will not be provided on-Wiki, email me if curious.) What if they had used AI to set up their sockpuppets? What if they already do? What if they put deep-cover plants in as admins and onto the Board, ARBCOM, etc? What if they already have?

I hope and believe that Jimbo (not pinging him, deliberately) is on to this for now. The lunatics will not be allowed to govern the asylum. But it will happen one day. Hopefully then a fork (probably several) will take over, assuming that the Internet itself has not also fallen victim. Andrewa (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. - BilCat (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Wait...

You're retired?!! Why did you retire?!! :-( ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Yup, I retired about 2 months ago. I just got tired of everything, and it's been so refreshing. I still use Wikipedia as a reader, as I've used encyclopedias regularly since I was a kid. I do occasionally make an edit or two, and I still check my much-reduced watchlist (from 30,000+ to 30!) every day or so. I hope all is well with you. Take care. - BilCat (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It's sad news to hear... I hate to lose you, but I'm happy to hear that life is happy for you and treating you gracefully. Stay healthy and be well. You will be missed. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

New message from Dave1185

Hello, BilCat. You have new messages at Dave1185's talk page.
Message added 19:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

retired one

Sorry to disturb you my retired friend but I wonder if I might trouble you for an opinion on native names in the info boxes - I've been debating with another on the reasoning to have them in the military article (twice) -once in the lead and then again in the info box. My only contention is that this text ie: “বাংলাদেশ বিমান বাহিনী” somehow gives the reader more info the Thai Air Force? We probably only need it once, & no reason to crowd the info box unnecessarily – So any thoughts of wisdom would be greatly appreciated – Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

No worries. I'm retired as an editor, but I'm still a regular reader/user of Wikipedia. There simply isn't a better one-stop option for information out there. As to your question, I agree with Milb1's response here. Sums it up nicely. - BilCat (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Possible you could reiterate the point in the discussion - just trying to get as many different suggestions as possible (and as always thanks your input) - cheers FOX 52 (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd rather stay out of it at this point. One reason I retired is I'm.tired of arguments that go on and on. And users on the other side tend not to like retired editors butting in either, which'll just cause more trouble I don't need. Sorry - BilCat (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Please protect Y-20 page

Hello BilCat.

Could you please lock the Xi'an Y-20 page?

They keep bring back the espionage nonsense.

Only admins can lock pages. I'm not an admin, sorry. - BilCat (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Could you please send a request to an admin to lock the page, especially on the development section.

People are constantly vandalizing it.

Thank you,

--2606:A000:121B:C2D3:A951:4781:5A41:7CB5 (talk) 03:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm retired, but some admins do watch my talk page. Maybe one of them will take a look. - BilCat (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I have had a look, doesnt appear to need protection at the moment and can be handled by reverting, if it does become a problem in the future then please let me or another admin know. MilborneOne (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Y-20 page distruptive editing begin.

Hello BilCat. Could you please notify admin.

There is this 82.34.69.170

He is doing the same thing on the page again.

Xi'an Y-20

Please stop him.

--2606:A000:121B:C2D3:28F8:9F96:D0A1:9BA2 (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Please help on the Comac ARJ21 Page

Hello BilCat.

This same user is not doing the same thing on Comac ARJ21 article. He keeps using these "source" which are nothing but speculation based on looks to back up his statement. He is saying that Comac ARJ21 is developed from MD-80. This is not the case.

Please help on the talk page and please get and admin to stop him.

Tank you,

--2606:A000:121B:C2D3:90DF:3E62:7E0:D75E (talk) 04:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm retired from Wikipedia. That means I don't make many edits anymore, and I don't get involved in editing issues. Please don't keep contacting me. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hope this reaches you. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Bill. Merry Christmas to you and yours. - BilCat (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

A very happy and peaceful Christmas Bil

A very happy and peaceful Christmas to you and yours Bil. I sincerely thank you for your friendship and support over the years. G d bless pal. Si. Simon Adler (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Simon. God bless you and yours also. - BilCat (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

US Space Command website

I can't seem to view the website on Google Chrome or FireFox or other web browser. Are you sure it is not dead? BlueD954 (talk) 12:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Just was able to go to it a few seconds ago. spacecom.mil is very much alive. Sorry for stalking your talk page bilcat...Garuda28 (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Still can't view, only can via cached...tried all browsers and phone data.BlueD954 (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

https://www.spacecom.mil/ is loading fine for me here right now. - Ahunt (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

It is still working for me. - BilCat (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are most welcome.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Hi BilCat, Noticed you have been active lately, glad to see that as I've always thought of you as an asset to WP. Cheers! - Samf4u (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

BilCat out and about

Good to see your name popping up on my watchlist. Hope you've been well. Best, El_C 20:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The term "supercarrier" is just a nickname for a large aircraft carrier

I didn't think this was contentious. o_O -- Kendrick7^talk 04:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, now you know it is contentious. It's a very common term. - BilCat (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's split the difference, I'll take super carrier and you can take supercarrier. I just didn't want that little article section to have 3 hat notes. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: That was going to be my suggestion. :) - BilCat (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Great... I started reverting so fast I crashed my usually happy computer, but I think it's all um... shipshape now. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Nobody likes it when their ideas or hard work gets torpedoed, so I'm glad we were able to come to an acceptable compromise. Happy sailing. :) - BilCat (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

B777

B787,A350,A330 have Orders and Deliveries as main section Ktdk (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ktdk: That is an error. I am currently fixing them. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks for explaining {{not a typo}} to someone. I dream of horses (talk) (contribs) Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page 09:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

KAI KF-X

Hey, I don't know if you looked at the article history of KAI KF-X, but I'm in the middle of copy editing it which has turned into a major rewrite. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: welcome

Thanks for that! I´m more a user in form of a reader of WP! A long time ago I wrote one article in the german WP. I turned mostly to the english one when searching for something, as it´s more detailed. Occasionaly I will drop my thoughts in the discussion pages if I will find discrepancys. greetings, Philipp Truedings (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

How are you doing?

Just thought I would drop you a note and see how you are fairing there down south during this rather difficult time? - Ahunt (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. We're hanging in there. No one we know has gotten the "American flu", as certain parties insist we call it :) . How are y'all doing down north? - BilCat (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Glad to hear you are okay. My understanding is that you and your cat have been in training for "social isolation" for the least few years anyway! My fiancee and I are okay, been in isolation for two and a half weeks now. We like each other, so this is fun for us. We are still allowed out for groceries and exercise, so as the ice melts here we have been doing some biking. She has been doing tons of sewing, she made all new upholstery for our sailboat, just not sure if we will get to sail this year. The sailing club is locked up for the duration. On the plus side there seems to be lots of great work being done here on Wikipedia by all the "shut-ins". Vandalism is up a little bit, but useful contributions have skyrocketed, so it is not all a bad situation. I ran out of aircraft references a few years ago, so I am mostly writing sailboat articles these days, plus also writing software reviews for a magazine I write for. We aren't bored yet. Hoping this all abates so that summer doesn't get cancelled. - Ahunt (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Yup, I've been in training.for social isolation for several years! The cats (2 now) are indoor/outdoor, so they still get out. I'm at risk, as is my elderly dad, so we're staying in as much as possible. Congratulations on the fiancee, with all that happened you I'm sure it's been a blessing to have her there. And yeah, I've noticed a lot more Wiki edits, even from some new problem editors going overboard in See also sections. :) - BilCat (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I did a couple of posts about the cat issue, they can be a boon, though.

Ah, yes, I saw that excess zeal! Better than excess vandalism. We have seen excess zeal elsewhere, too, even in Canada. That got solved though, as you can see at the bottom. We have been doing some biking now that spring is here, just doing it away from other people. At least for now we are allowed outdoors. - Ahunt (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

LOL on the cat 🐱 photos!! We sent our cats out for food the other day, and they brought back a headless vole (field mouse). After that, we risked going to the store ourselves. ;) - BilCat (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes. It seems dogs are better at that than cats are! At least he didn't eat the cheetos... - Ahunt (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm a germophobe, so I wouldn't be eating out of that bag! BilCat (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a germophobe paradise these days - you can wear a mask and gloves out and hardly anyone looks at you askance! - Ahunt (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not that much of a germophobe - I just don't eat after pets! - BilCat (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of isolating with pets... - Ahunt (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Designations

"2" is not a skipped designation, since T-2 had been in service untill 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dap78 (talk • contribs)

@Dap78: T-2 was assigned in the 1962 series, not since 1990. I'd rather just list the T-1 Jayhawk as a reassignment in the 1962 series, but that's not how the navbox treats it. - BilCat (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

A318

While I agree that there probably won't be any more A318s, has it been formally withdrawn as a program? It kind of seems like they've left if in case somebody wants one for executive use. Acroterion (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the point of splitting that hair. It hasn't been produced since 2013, and if production were to restart, then we'd add the restart date. - BilCat (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Acroterion (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thanks for reporting the IP. Sorry to get to it late, but glad it was handled.

EvergreenFir (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: No worries. I have a feeling they'll be back, so you'll probably get another chance. - BilCat (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Past vs. present tense on aircraft articles

From [1]:

"The first sentence should be in present tense if flyable aircraft exist. But if the aircraft is extinct or only found in museums then use past tense."

Thanks! - Immigrant laborer (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

?Huh? That isn't what it says there. - BilCat (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Note that page was just changed (by me), based on our consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Layout_(Aircraft)#Tense_guidelines_again. - Ahunt (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Aha. Timing is everything. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Well it was this discussion here that caused me to check our previous consensus on this and update the guidelines, as we had never finished the job there. The guidelines didn't make sense before, as explained in that discussion, as even flying aircraft in private hands or existent aircraft in museums were written about in past tense. - Ahunt (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Hope I haven't been too akward

The subject title says it pretty well. My editing sometimes isn't the best, thanks for helping Kyteto (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kyteto: No problem. Most of my changes were just reducing overlinking and seas of blue links in a few places. - BilCat (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kyteto: Re: redirects and piped links, see WP:NOPIPE: First of all, keep links as simple as possible:...It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects:...Unnecessary piping makes the wikitext harder to read. Furthermore, the number of links to a redirect page can be a useful gauge of when it would be helpful to spin off a subtopic of an article into its own page, and such links would also continue to work correctly after the spin-off.

Nothing about concerns for server overload is mentioned, so I take it that it's not a big issue. - BilCat (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I must admit, I don't have a policy to bring up in response. It's something I believe I heard quite a few years ago and went with ever since, I'll change my working patterns accordingly. Thanks for the adjustment - If I get pushback in the other direction, I'll try to remember to push this line right back at them. It's just another happy day on Wikipedia of one group of editors apparently wanting the opposite of another group, and being bounced like a ball between them it seems! Kyteto (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yup, plenty of example of that on Wikipedia. There are so many guidelines that many of them are quite contradictory. One day I'm going to write an essay on "Too Many Cooks Spoil the Wiki!" It applies to all areas of Wikipedia, not just guidelines. Wikipedia is definitely designed by committee! (Another redirect there - I wasn't sure it would work when I linked it.) - BilCat (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Removal of comments

Hi their man

Thanks for letting me know about my lexington comment being removed, ....as you say, no it wasnt me, im just going to revert it

Tony Spike (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hoggardhigh activity

Hi there, as you've been keeping an eye out for socks of User:Hoggardhigh, you might want to know that they are currently active as User:179.53.163.135. I've submitted an SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoggardhigh. All the best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello BilCat!

Hope this is the right way to reach you being that you are semi retired. Thank you for your suggestions on my Draft:Frank W. Caldwell I've made some of the suggested changes. Might you have time to review Draft:Frank W. Caldwell prior to my submitting the draft. Thanks for your time. Peteschulz210User:Peteschulz210 (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Peteschulz210: No problem, I'll take a look later tonight or tomorrow. Generally, when someone leaves a message on your talk page, you can just respond there. - BilCat (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

A-1 Skyraider

Hello BilCat, Just wondering how was my source on the A-1H unreliable? Alex.inman4 (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Alex.inman4: Because Air Vectors is not a reliable source. It's a self-published site. - BilCat (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Question on drafts

I have been helping out on a draft article that is going through the usual process there of being improved and then serially rejected over and over by the "draft watchers". I know you just recently moved a draft to mainspace. Any restrictions or advice on doing that? - Ahunt (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't quite know. The Frank W. Caldwell draft that I moved hadn't been reviewed yet. Per Wikipedia:Drafts#Publishing a draft, "Publishing a draft requires an editor to use the page move function to move it into the Main (article) namespace. ...any other user may edit, publish, redirect, merge or seek deletion of any draft." I think if you believe it's ready, if you're still a page mover, you can move it. Alternatively, you could submit it as a split on the main article's talk page, and seek a consensus that way. - BilCat (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah we already have a consensus there to split it, I just have some more editing to do on it and it can be moved. Thanks for the link and the advice! - Ahunt (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, good. I didn't think to check the talk page before replying, so it was just a general answer. - BilCat (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

SA-2 GUIDELINE, S-75

Hi BilCat. I don't know why you have changed my edit to the V-Bomber page. Could you change it back please as most people around the world, especially in the military, know Russian equipment by the NATO reporting name: BEAR, FULCRUM, GUIDELINE etc.TopGun1066 (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@TopGun1066: In general, we use the actual name of the weapon or aircraft on Wikipedia. The NATO reporting names tend to be seen as non-neutral by editors from non-NATO countries, so we generally don't use them outside of the article on the specific weapon, except in limited cases. See WP:AIRNATO for the guideline on how to use NATO reporting names in aircraft articles. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Your reversion...

"Undid revision 957523017 by TheGrandRascal (talk) unsourced - not an example farm."

1. If your objection is that my revision lacks a source to back it, wouldn't it have been less confrontational to point that out, and then give me a chance to rectify matters by providing one?

2. "Not an example farm" may be correct (I don't know), but whether it's right or not, it sure sounds like scolding! I'm new at this: couldn't you have managed a way of putting it that doesn't sound quite so hostile? The Grand Rascal (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm blunt. The list of names have been removed anyway, and rightly so, as explained on the article's talk page by another editor. - BilCat (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Logo

Hi, right now when we search Positiv on Google, the Juice logo is showing up. Happy to provide a screenshot (see attached). Is there any way we can use our current Positiv logo instead? Thanks! Mhouse1 (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mhouse1: As far as I can tell, that logo and information is on the Google site, not Wikipedia, so you'd have to contact them to get them changed. Our Positiv article has a Positiv logo. - BilCat (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

This ....

..never really stops, does it? Whack-a-Mole without End. (Amen.) Qwirkle (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Qwirkle: No, it sure doesn't. I took almost a year off Wikipedia to recover from it. I don't know now long I'll last this time. - BilCat (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You’d think with all the fine high-octane technogeeks we have around here, the old chestnuts could be flagged automatically, a note sent to the author, and so forth. It’s almost as though the PTB want to watch the exasperation of the overworked whackeur de mole. Qwirkle (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

That's what happens when you work for free: You're taken for granted. - BilCat (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Walter Banks

Hello, BilCat. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Walter Banks".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Well dang. :( -Fnlayson (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

We can get a refund, if you want to keep working on it. I'd forgotten all about it, as I had cleared my watchlist last year when I wiki-retired. - BilCat (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, but probably not worth it. I had added what info I could find in online articles but not enough details for a decent article imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You're probably right. It's always there if we run across more information, especially from national sources. - BilCat (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Any man who has his own bobblehead is surely notable.... Qwirkle (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Reverts

Per MOS it is overly hyper linked and does not need to be. It should only be linked once in the article and not every time it’s mentioned. Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 19:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Galendalia: Without an accurate edit summary, it just looked like vandalism. It was also incorrect, as most of those links had not been linked to in the body, only in the lead. Per MOS:OL, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." (Bolding added.) In a technical article such as this one, linking in the body and captions at least once is helpful. - BilCat (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Some of them were linked in the same paragraph multiple times. I do my best not to touch tables or anything other than the lead. I’m mobile so I can’t pull up an example right now. I also usually leave the lead and something after that for the same article link. But when I saw one linked on 5 different occasions in the text it was removed. If I remember right one was Boeing and it was linked quite a few times through the text of the article not including the above listed sections. Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 21:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Galendalia: No problem. I'll take a look in little bit and try to remove those, and that's definitely overlinking/duplicate links. - BilCat (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

;) yeah I was using AWB and I’m still getting used to it Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 22:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

aviation
... you were recipient no. 2214 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

An aviation accident related discussion you may be interested in

It is this one[2]. Feel free to give your opinion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You ever get this?

Hey Bill just wondering if you ever got an alert adding you to another Wiki, like this. Not sure how it came to be, I've never edited on that wiki before. - FOX 52 (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I get them every once in a while. I'm not sure how exactly it works, but I think it's related to Global Login. - BilCat (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Just to butt in here: I get these whenever I rename a file on Commons, which then edits every place it is used, in all language versions of Wikipedia, which then results in greeting messages from those Wikipedia versions. - Ahunt (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. - BilCat (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I just wanted to make sure wasn't hacked - FOX 52 (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk page comment

Thanks for removing that and leaving the editor in question a WP:NPA warning. It looks like an admin watches use of that template and blocked him as WP:NOTHERE. I was going to note that receiving talk page notes like that, even if they are a year and a half after the events in question, are particularly satisfying. I figure if you are not eliciting responses like that from WP:COI WP:POV warriors with a particular WP:AXE to grind and are here to add unsourced WP:ATTACKs then we are not doing our jobs as editors. - Ahunt (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering how that admin had blocked so quickly! I left a message with another admin right after I warned the user, and was surprised someone else blocked that quickly. Anyway, it's always satisfying when someone is blocked for claiming you can't get them blocked! (Among other things of course, but that claim was in his "post".) He may well be telling the truth about what happened with Cirrus, but this isn't the way to handle such situations. It is strange it took a year and a half for a response, but anger and bitterness have no expiration dates. We'll have to keep an eye out for socks. - BilCat (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, it is quite possible that what he says may be accurate, but Wikipedia is not the place to redress grievances anyway: talk to a lawyer! The company is now owned by the Chinese government and I am sure they don't care what he writes! For the record, he was quite right, I didn't have him blocked - he did that all on his own! The nice thing is that any socks should be very easy to spot as they will just be adding the same POV to the same article, can't really go anywhere else or say anything else. Well, as I always say, "the price of a great encyclopedia is eternal vigilance." - Ahunt (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I need help

I don't want to break rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. But I spent lot of time in creating Iqbal Azad. Please help me to save this page from deletion at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Iqbal Azad. I hope you will help me to save this page.

Thanks Kaitudi (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

If the article is not notable per Wikipedia's guidelines, then it will be deleted. Wikipedia is not a fan page or Facebook. It is an encyclopedia with rules and guidelines that need to be followed. Please do not ask other users to help you to "save" the page, as that is not permitted on Wikipedia. - BilCat (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox Change for the U.S. Coast Guard and it's Predecessor

I was wondering if you would be interested in weighing in and giving an opinion on this Talk:United States Revenue Cutter Service#Infobox_change. Neovu79 (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

No thanks. I stopped watching the article because of all the drama! Way past STICK! - BilCat (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Jet engines

I have just stumbled on three articles that look like they are ripe for deletion: Corrected flow, Corrected fuel flow and Corrected speed.

What do you think? Deletion or merge with some existing major article? Dolphin (t) 12:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi BilCat. Any thoughts on this one? Dolphin (t) 02:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Dolph, I forgot to reply. I'd suggest you ask at WT:AIR, and perhaps ping User:Pieter1963 also. - BilCat (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do that. Dolphin (t) 06:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Steven F Udvar Hazy Center removal content

I'm just only removing the See also content in Steven F Udvar Hazy Center article pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1106:6401:ACB1:7F3E:CE6D:3F1E (talk)

Don't. - BilCat (talk) 04:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Knoxville, Tennessee

Thank you for this edit at Knoxville where you removed "Beware of prostitutes and fake drug dealers ready to rob you at the drop of a hat. The government allows this behavior in an attempt to isolate crime in the city. If you are a victim of crime in the area do not expect police to be of assistance." The IP is from Derry, New Hampshire, and the place looks like one of the most idyllic towns in America. Someone obviously had a bad trip to Knoxville. Wikipedia makes me laugh sometimes. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yup. The part the gets me is "fake drug dealers" - how do meet a "fake" drug dealer?? The obvious answer is you thought he was real, and were trying to buy drugs from them! Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Hi there, just wanted to thank you for the nice little bit of cleanup you did on my talk page. In these strange times I'm more appreciative than ever of kindness and civility, and that was both. So, thank you much. :) Jessicapierce (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Stay safe. - BilCat (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit skills

Bill without trying to drag you in this mess, can you possible add or suggest some clean up here - The editor has basically copied'n pasted an English translated version of this document. Thank you FOX 52 (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I'm having a similar issue with IAI Kfir. WP:BRD seemed to work, and thus user subsequently opened a discussion and on the talk page after a second revert exchange. Don't know if that'd be helpful in your case or not, given the STICK issues with the same user at USRCS! In your case, it does seem to be better English, but it's probably too formal. - BilCat (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Links in F-104 variants section

Hey there! Do you think that {{main}} links would work better? I personally have no problem with the section as it now is, but one of the comments in the A-class review was that it was preferable to use {{main}} templates rather than directly link the description-list headers. I didn't want to make that section any longer (it's already longer than the supposed main variants article), and that if links were truly in violation of MOS:HEAD (your opinion on this would also be welcome), my preference was that the links simply be removed. Would be interested to hear your thoughts. CThomas³ (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Main links are fine with me. There just needs to ne some indication in the Variants section that there are variant articles on some of the types. - BilCat (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

fly by wire discussion

Hi there, please note, the dassault rafale has fly by wire using fibre optics, which is fly by light as listed, my source clearly states it in paragraph 11 (in French) "avec ses commandes de vol en fibre optique" https://www.capital.fr/entreprises-marches/avions-de-combat-la-guerre-est-relancee-720374

This was also said in a french scientific documentary called c'est pas sorcier I have in DVD!

Regards,

GillesBLT (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@GillesBLT: The Dassault Rafale article clearly states that the Rafale uses fly by wire, with no mention of light/optics. You may well be correct, and if so, that needs to be in that article. I suggest that you raise the issue at Talk:Dassault Rafale so that other editors can participate. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@BilCat: The french page of the Dassault Rafale clearly states that it is a fly-by-light system and it is sourced, I will also correct the english wikipedia. GillesBLT (talk) 04:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@GillesBLT: I'd still recommend discussing it first on the Rafale talk page. It's possible the fly-by-light was added in one of the later updates, and not on the first versions..(You don't have to add the Yo-tag on a user's own talk page, as we're notified automatically.) - BilCat (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Douglas A-20 article

I see you reverted my edit in this article. I have no doubt you are correct about the design never being produced. However, the sentence which I attempted to correct is difficult to make sense of as it stands. "Reports of aircraft performance from the Spanish Civil War indicated that this design would be seriously underpowered, and it was canceled." This passage implies that the design WAS produced and used in the Spanish Civil War. I thought this was unlikely, but if it wasn't, then my edit was the correct one. I think that the passage needs to be re-written to clarify exactly what design was in those reports from the Spanish Civil War whose performance led to cancellation. Tmangray (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hellfire Article

I see you reverted my edit on the article in order to pass your political agenda. I provided plenty of reasoning to show that targeted killing is a euphemism and a controversial term (as claimed by the definition given by Wikipedia. Check it out, assuming you have not reverted it). You accused me of POV, but my changes had the obvious benefits of expanding on the article and, in particular, I swapped the controversial term with the universal and widespread one. Why would you choose the controversial one over the non-controversial one? I also noticed there is a trend here, in your discussion page. So I believe you have a POV agenda to make "military terms" look fancy and have the narrative go your way. Please cease and desist and declare your conflicts of interest. I have none. Zero. No link to the strategic community or peace movements of sort. I am just arguing to use clear and easily understandable language terms over politically controversial ones.--MarcelloPapirio (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I gave my reasoning on the article's talk page, and your welcome to continue the discussions there. As for your accusations, they could be considered Personal Attacks, and administrative actions could be taken against you. I'd recommend you apologize and take back your unfounded accusations, but I doubt you'll do that. - BilCat (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I apologise, but I do still subject myself to the Admins call. I am ready to subject myself to scrutiny but I also want you to be put on scrutiny. But be informed it was not my choice to bring admins into discussion. I do not see how you accusing me of POV is legit on the talk page but me telling you are POV warrants admin intervention. You called me POV, I call you POV. This evens out the thing.--MarcelloPapirio (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. All I recall ever stating was that the edits were POV which to me meant the edits were non-neutral, not necessarily you. I never cast aspersions on you yourself, or accused you of having an agenda of any kind. You claimed So I believe you have a POV agenda to make "military terms" look fancy and have the narrative go your way., and that I have undeclared conflict of interests. That's a far cry from what I did. I haven't reported you, and didn't intend to do so unless the accusations escalated. (But be aware that a few admins do watchlist my talk page, and may act on their own initiative.) We all "want the narrative go our way" to some degree, as we all have biases. I rarely argue for a position I do not agree with, what ever it is, and I doubt you do either. However, I will argue for Wikipedia policies and guidelines that I don't necessarily agree with, or support the results of a discussion where I was in opposition to the end result. For example, if I disagree with the result of a move discussion, I won't move the page to a title I prefer, and I have on several occasions reverted those who made such moves. - BilCat (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. You are right at pointing out that my wording was controversial, if not outright offensive. Now I see what you mean, I just could not cope (apparently) with the idea that I was making the page less NPOV. Imagine this: I make a change. Two days later it is reverted. This happens all the time on Wikipedia and I remember a huge debate some 10 years ago in which Wikipedians were seriously worried that bureaucracy and quick reverts might frustrate the new users. In all respects, it is as if I subscribed yesterday. Also, I think I went too far with the idea of conflict of interest and I think I was a bit of an ass and my actions towards you were disrespectful now that I see clearly what happened, i.e. that I took NPOV to affect me personally, whereas you were merely objecting to a matter of content in the page. In my line of work, people usually state their conflicts of interests openly. E.g. one might say "I work in the oil industry" so of course we know where the guy comes from when editing this or that. But I see it is not the case here, so it was unwarranted for me to even ask this, let alone imply it. This said, I am still quite happy we found some level of agreement. Would it be too much to ask you to delete my bad words, if I promise to behave? I do not know if I deserve it, but if you bless me with the gift of oblivion, I might try to do a fresh start and abide by the rules. You can leave this paragraph intact as a testimony of my own good will. Best regards and please accept my apologies once again. But I will understand if you want to keep the above as a memento.--MarcelloPapirio (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the mea culpa, especially as I didn't expect to get it. In that I misjudged you, and for that I apologize. You're welcome to strike out the comments that you take back, and the page will be archived in several weeks. We all make mistakes, snap judgments, etc, but we aren't always so quick to take responsibility for it. Thanks for being willing to do so. - BilCat (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

And / but

Hi could you explain the reversion please? I changed it because being smaller would be in effect a point against the plane, but being cheaper would be a point in favour of it. So but seems more appropriate than and end. regards, Springnuts (talk) 07:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Not how I read it. - BilCat (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Smaller, similar aircraft with same generation engines are usually more fuel efficient. Being smaller aircraft can also help with parking or storing more aircraft at a base in theater. This was an issue that came up during the KC-135 replacements efforts (KC-X and before). -Fnlayson (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I get that, and will aim to disentangle this from the smaller cargo load, which is, presumably, a point against it. Please have a look back. Springnuts (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Have done. It smacks a little of OR, but I have not gone into the sources much; just seeking to reword and clarify, so if it was sourced before, it is sourced now. Springnuts (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

proposed change

Hey Bill would like your thoughts on a proposed main image changed, being discussed Here - Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

What next?

If you're American, happy Independence Day! I wonder if I can ask you or one of your many page watchers a question. I started a discussion at Talk:Washington Examiner#Refutation to the Washington Examiner's editorial stance and it's burning like a wildfire, though there doesn't seem to be a consensus in sight. Should an RfC be started? If so, when? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, and the same to you! Yes, I'm a proud American. Hopefully it will still be a legal holiday next year, but I'll celebrate it irregardless! :)

As to your question, I did look at that article's talk page once, but quickly decided it wasn't something I wanted to get into. Political issues, which that certainly is, aren't easily settled on Wikipedia, and usually won't be to the satisfaction of everyone. If you think an RfC is warranted, then go ahead. - BilCat (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I call those "flags in infobox" topics. I'll just leave it. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Kiev

Thumbs up for removing this rather shocking edit from the talk page. So much for the "be polite" and "assume good faith" mantras, yet this was one of the most POVish and PA rants I've ever seen in a page move-related discussion (plus, the xenophobia accusations and the singling out of user's edits from as far as 13 years ago are really disturbing). Luckily, it's now in the page history in case ArbCom needs to review it as well. Impru20^talk 09:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yup, but that's SPAs for ya. More than likely a block-evading sock anyway. Clearly.not a new user, but definitely has CIR issues - BilCat (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Let me add my thanks as well. I'm still trying to figure out how my comment about nationalist comments by people at another site is supposed to be an attack on users here. --Khajidha (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It's clearly not new, but I'm not sure whether it's a block-evading sock or an active user editing while logged out. Anyway, there is a disturbing pattern of specifically singling out "dissenting" users on this issue, and I don't mean just the IP. Impru20^talk 18:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

My 14+ years of experience on Wikipedia dealing with such contentious users is that in many cases, they're evading blocks. It's not an accusation, just a statement of probability based on past experience. As to targeting dissenters, that's a tactic that's popular nowadays in public discourse, and it's not a good thing in a supposedly free society. - BilCat (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I find it odd that the IP brought up User:SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava and wonder if this is Slava. --Khajidha (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

He brought up several users, and perhaps he is one or more of them. Unfortunately, most of those accounts are very stale, so a Checkuser, even if warranted, would probably be useless. - BilCat (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The IP has restored his screed, which is no surprise. I've made enough reverts as it is on that talk page, so I'll leave it to someone else to remove it this time. - BilCat (talk)

They have been already reverted, and instructed to go to WP:ANI instead. Impru20^talk 20:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yup, I asked El C to look at it, and he reverted it. Hopefully it won't come back. Another admin advised the IP to post an edited version at ArbCom when the case goes live. We'll see what happens, but I expect it will be even longer, not shorter when it shows up again, wherever it does show up! - BilCat (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

You are passing up an opportunity.

Under “alignment” on your user page, you could have numbers for caster, camber, and toe. That’d confuse the bahstids. Qwirkle (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I honestly didn't think of that! I wasn't sure what to put, but that will work. Thanks. :) - BilCat (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Qwirkle: I added "toe out". It's not numbers, but this works for me. - BilCat (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Advice

Struggling with a non-responsive editor over at Space and Missile Systems Center. Do you have any advice? Garuda28 (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

One, don't revert him any more. You're at or past 3RR, and this isn't vandalism. (Not a warning, just good advice.) Two, open a discussion on the talk page, and present your sources. Obviously, the "&" is on the shield, so make sure your sources address that, if possible. If they don't engage in a good-faith discussion there, then you can always seek admin action. Sometimes I get bogged down in reverts that are actually about minor issues, and my OCD tendencies won't let me let it go. I have to remind myself, and sometimes someone else has to do the reminding, that I don't always have to be right, even when I know I am right! Hope that helps. :) - BilCat (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Much appreciate – I am at the three for sure, and made a note not to cross it; they’re finally engaging on their talk page, so I think we are making progress. Thanks for your solid advice, as always. Garuda28 (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Good that they're responding anyway. And if you ever want a private response, feel free to send my an email. (Sometimes I'd rather get an answer like that in private!) - BilCat (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Americans

Oops, I saw you at the bottom of the page arguing with an IP about rollbacks and didn't check the timestamp. WilyD 09:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Bombardier C series

hi

Appreciate your point, but the other points outweighed it for me

1. Started pre 2010, with 2. letters of intent in 2008

3. The production complex was not started until 2010 4. Production started post 2010

5. First aircraft produced post 2010

6. Competition was all post 2010, and much from mod 2010s on

Similarly, the paragraph talks about competing with the 737 Max, in 2017.

Actual production and sales took place after 2009, and with the paragraph mentioning it's competition mainly being the -700 -800 -900 and MAX series, it pretty much makes it NOT an "early activity"

Can we at least agree on that before continuing? Chaosdruid (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Before continuing to do what? - BilCat (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Get well soon

Hope you are feeling better shortly! - Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Best wishes for a speedy recovery. El_C 12:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hang in. Qwirkle (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all. I do appreciate it very much. - BilCat (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Feel better!User:Peteschulz210 (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Flag of Jamaica

OK, I accept that the heading wasn't the best place to link Jamaica: so where should it be linked from. I've no doubt there should be a link somewhere on the page - I was in that article and wanting to get to the article about the country, and didn't expect to have to type it in the box. But the only other occurrence of "Jamaica" in the lead or the first section is in the phrase "Jamaican Independence Day", and that seemed an even worse place to link. What do you suggest? --ColinFine (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@ColinFine: It'll take some creative writing in the lead. I'll take a look, and see if I can find a place to slip it in. - BilCat (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Wingtip device article

If you thanked me for removing a fake image of a Airbus plane (A317) that does not exist, why did you revert my deletion of the image? David notMD (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD: Because I'm a doofus! I was trying to revert further back, but reverted to the wrong diff, and didn't double-check my work. Thanks for catching it, and feel free to apply Trout. I'll try to be more careful. - BilCat (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

EC-47 edits

The reason I tried to correct the EC-47 information came from an informed website (http://www.ec47.com/ec-47-serial-numbers-and-data). The entry indicates that C-47A & C-47D were modified to EC-47N/P/Q when in fact only C-47A & C-47B were modified as such. The C-47D was a modified C-47A (power plant changes) that never got modified to EC-47 status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.158.202 (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hyphen

Why do you insist on a hyphen, as in 1781-1789, rather than an en-dash, as in 1781–1789, the latter being prescribed by WP:MOS? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't even notice that, but to be honest, that's a guideline I don't pay much attention to anyway. I can barely even see a difference between a hyphen and an en-dash on my tablet screen, my eyes are so bad. I normally just use hyphens when I type, and leave it to others to sort it all out. It's all too confusing, and so different from what I was taught in English and typing classes over 30 years ago. And it seems to change every few years here anyway. IIRC, the n-dash between dates was only put in the MOS in the last couple of years, but I could be wrong on the timing. But I'll try to be more careful in the future. - BilCat (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm astonished that you think it was only in the last couple of years. It goes back at least 15 years. I remember in about 2009 wondering why some people were _still_ not aware of it. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

If I can interject here, I often see the same issue. There has never been any degree of actual day-to-day "editing consensus" on hyphens, vs endash, vs emdash vs etc, regardless of MOS, policy or guidelines. My keyboard doesn't have an endash or emdash key, only a hyphen key. Oh, I know how to write them in HTML5, but that is not appreciated here, so, like Bill, I write my articles with hyphens only. Often other editors appear and change everything to endashes, emdashes, double hyphens or something else, always quoting some MOS page or other. I just leave them. Then, soon, another editor will show up and change them again, quoting some other MOS interpretation. And, then, some time later, another editor will appear, MOS in hand, and change them all back to hyphens. I just watch and get on with writing articles. Outside my window the trees sprout leaves in the spring, are green all summer and then they fall to the ground in autumn, the trees sit dormant all winter and then the leaves grow back in the spring. So it is with hyphens and dashes. Perhaps my next computer will have an endash or emdash key on it. Perhaps the hyphen and dash warriors will call a truce and come up with a policy that makes some sense. Perhaps the leaves will stop falling in the autumn, too. - Ahunt (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. - BilCat (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

There actually a number of questionable guidelines I'm no longer enforcing. I'm not purposefully violating them, but I'm not expending any effort to revert them when I see them. We have far too many guidelines in the MOS as a whole, and unfortunately many contradict each other. There are also far too many users in Wikipedia whose sole or primary purpose appears to be to write as many new guidelines as possible. Most of them are trying to enforce their own narrow prescriptivist grammar rules, and they really have no interest in actually writing for an encyclopedia. I tend to ignore those users and their rules. - BilCat (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes enforcing the MOS is just tedious work, especially to enforce guidelines I really don't agree with in the first place. I already reverted this user once today, only to subsequently discover that they've been making the same types of edits to dozens of articles for several days. I'm beginning to remember why I retired last year! - BilCat (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

ahem. - Ahunt (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back

Last time I checked your user page, it showed that you were retired. The reason I remember your username is because you were the first one to 'thank' my edits back in 2017 (diff/767857493 and diff/767847280) when I was very young and naive on this project. I hope you well soon and would like to take the opportunity to welcome you back. Stay safe. Regards, Field Marshal (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	thanks Henryaguc2019 (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

AFD on the Bigsworth Board

Dear BilCat - sorry to bother you. Could you have another little look at your contribution to the Afd on the Bigsworth Board (- a little page I made)? I think you might have "voted" twice... which might not be what you meant to do. I am struggling a bit with aging so might not be right ... Anyway. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 08:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC))

Thanks, I forgot to strike out my original comment. I'm struggling with aging too! - BilCat (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Ski jump?

Re [3], may I please see a citation to a reliable source that supports your claim that the modular kit to convert a merchant ship into a STOVL carrier contains a ski jump? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Citation to a reliable source added by a TPS.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Thanks User:Nigel Ish! I know I've read all that somewhere, and have it in print books, but it would still taken me a while to find it. - BilCat (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

There's a photo online that's similar to the one I have in my book. - BilCat (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow. I really thought that was a mistake. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Sometimes I actually do know what I'm doing! :) BilCat (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The Americas

I would like a proper explanation on why my edits are being taken down, when it's a factual statement and takes no more than two lines. I think it's important information so people understand there is more than one interpretation to the division of territories and that the Anglo-American perseption of it is not the only one, as many people think. Thank you in advance. FioDeste (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss changes to the article on its talk page so that.other editors can participate. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hoggardhigh's latest

Special:Contributions/179.53.9.113. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

...and they've logged in now: Special:Contributions/JoinOnIn Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Yup, no doubt about it now. Time for SPI? - BilCat (talk)

Quad engines airplanes

It was not my intention to do any “edit war”, but saw it could look like it from the history afterwards. Did not see your reverts until after a few further small edits, overwriting the reverts. I suggest the article use “recent” to much and in a time dependent way and can be improved. Especially saying “In January 2018, the latest available information was from January 2018” quickly gets outdated. Ws1920 (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC) Ws1920 (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have waited a while longer. I look and see if anything more can be reworded. BilCat (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Morristown College

Let me get your opinion about something. This AfD closed as "merge". So an editor shoehorned nearly the entire article into Morristown College. Now the college article is unbalanced, and contains all the stuff that didn't merit its own article. I've never merged an article before, but surely it isn't a complete cut-and-paste. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I think I found my answer here. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It usually depends on the article and the subject. It probably needs to be condensed into one paragraph, summary style, and without the infobox. BilCat (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• I did a little work on Morristown College#Heritage Park section and added a {{summarize section}} tag. Best of luck. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fnlayson: Hey thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 08:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It's nice to be appreciated for such work. The vandals certainly don't appreciate it! BilCat (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit for WikiProject Baseball, needs fixing

Greetings, Today I noticed this edit throws display window off, creating over-size page. Wondering if you could look at fixing as I don't have any clue what the correction should be. Thanks. JoeNMLC (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know either. That's far beyond my abilities, but thanks for asking. One of my page watchers may know, however, but if not, you can ask on the Baseball Project's talk page. BilCat (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi BilCat - fyi, I did some experimentation (try & error) on that Baseball WP and fixed it. Interesting how those wide transcludes cause the issue. JoeNMLC (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, BilCat. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hoggardhigh

User:179.53.128.55 Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker: Thanks. Looks like Special:Contributions/190.167.54.62 is another one. BilCat (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Noted. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:US enlisted ranks

Looks like there needs to be a consensus for this. I would greatly appreciate your input, for or against. :) Neovu79 (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, but I don't know enough about the details of the subject to be comfortable participating. BilCat (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow

He is now blocked, but I am in awe that people would start accounts just to attack you. You must be really tackling the hard and controversial material on Wikipedia! Congrats on the great work! - Ahunt (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Not really! I'm not the only one, as this putz has been targeting several users lately. I reverted one of its targets recently, and this is its pathetic way of retaliating. BilCat (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a badge of honour. Thanks for taking it on! Just shows that you are making an impact, keeping the encyclopedia working! - Ahunt (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This brings another meaning to single-purpose account. Thanks for all you do. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow

He is now blocked, but I am in awe that people would start accounts just to attack you. You must be really tackling the hard and controversial material on Wikipedia! Congrats on the great work! - Ahunt (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Not really! I'm not the only one, as this putz has been targeting several users lately. I reverted one of its targets recently, and this is its pathetic way of retaliating. BilCat (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a badge of honour. Thanks for taking it on! Just shows that you are making an impact, keeping the encyclopedia working! - Ahunt (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This brings another meaning to single-purpose account. Thanks for all you do. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Lockheed U2

LOL. Yeah, you're right. After I made that change, I thought about it for a minute or two, and checked into it. I was about to self-revert my revert, but you beat me to it. I hate it when I screw up... Sorry 'bout that! Cheers! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 05:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries. I've made enough mistakes today myself! BilCat (talk) 05:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for putting it out there

Not sure which I want to do most: laugh or cry about your New WP Slogans and your comment "I'm getting to the point where ..."; they are spot-on and reflect my own mood. It reassures me that I'm not alone. Thanks for the chuckle. —Quondum 22:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

You're most welcome, and thanks for the kind words. I'm glad to know I'm not alone too. BilCat (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Do 335

Clearly you are supporting the constant English/American pursuit to defame everything German as "Nazi"-related. I think the word Nazi is not required in the context of a technical invention. But most likely you are as biased and narrowminded as the original authors of the article. In fact, you are acting against the principles of Wikipedia, by spreading nationalism, hatred associations etc. --KristallograefIn (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@KristallograefIn: Actually I support using "German" in the text. What I don't support is edit warring to impose my, or your, preference on the article. Rather, I support a civil discussion on the article's talk page where a clear consensus can reached. That's how Wikipedia works. BilCat (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Scoop100

Hi. I've been doing some editing recently which clearly you're not impressed with. I obviously need to go back to the drawing-board in some ways but it does seem to me that I'm being reverted on just about everything I've done over the last few days. I'm just not sure all of your reversions are entirely fair (some are, of course). For example, you reverted a change on Task Force 77 (United States Navy) which I'd made in the World War 11 section, so that it again shows Task Force 77.4. So do I take it that there was a Task Force 77.4? It was incorrect for me to edit that to Task Force 77?

The sub-headings were just attempts to break up what looked to me to be some pretty heavy looking blocks of text. Personally I didn't think in every case they broke all the MoS rules; probably some did, I'd agree. Anyway, I'll try and stay out of your way now; that's probably the best way forward for us both. Scoop100 (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

It was Task Group 77.4, not Task Force 77.4, which is why I reverted it. Sorry to be a pain, it happens on here sometimes. I know it's happened to me too, and though I didn't always like it, the best thing is to try to learn from it. BilCat (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I confused the revisions. Sorry! --Hashmatash (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Hoggardhigh

Hoggardhigh. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

B 737

There is an invitation to discuss in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boeing_737 that might interest you. Ex nihil ^(talk) 10:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Peacock (streaming service)

About my latest edit, sorry about my grammar. I'm still learning the English grammar anyway. PedroLucasDBr (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I only know a few words in Portuguese, and I'm sure it's absolutely horrible! BilCat (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

American English

opened SPI on latest IP. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:86.148.39.66 reported by User:Meters (Result: ) — Meters (talk) 05:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I had also dropped a note on User:Oshwah's talk page. Hopefully one method will work. BilCat (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hughes H-1 Racer

I noticed that you recently reverted a change to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-1_Racer article concerning a claim from Howard Hughe's that the A6M Zero was a copy of his company's Hughes H-1 Racer. My concern is that the inclusion of this quote creates the impression that Hughes assertion bears weight. As the Zero bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Hughes H-1 this is like claiming that the sky is actually red because of recent photos of the California wildfires. While I recognize the importance of not editorializing we also don't want to include sources or quotes, however interesting, that give undue weight to conspiracy theoriesWP:RSUW. If you have any ideas of how to soften this quote or if you think that it should be removed I would be glad to hear your thoughts. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hughes H-1 Racer

I noticed that you recently reverted a change to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-1_Racer article concerning a claim from Howard Hughe's that the A6M Zero was a copy of his company's Hughes H-1 Racer. My concern is that the inclusion of this quote creates the impression that Hughes assertion bears weight. As the Zero bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Hughes H-1 this is like claiming that the sky is actually red because of recent photos of the California wildfires. While I recognize the importance of not editorializing we also don't want to include sources or quotes, however interesting, that give undue weight to conspiracy theoriesWP:RSUW. If you have any ideas of how to soften this quote or if you think that it should be removed I would be glad to hear your thoughts. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Us armed forces

So we have one low court says some what did not made a crucial impact on the institution and that thing is repealed and all is put back as constitutional and I provided source. But you prefere to things stays as it stays even on the lead. So are you doing advocacy or you are personaly biased and not neutral?. So I can even think to you make some form of vandalism. My source is relevant. https://apnews.com/6240679fed466f36679b7492d015cf0c. So what is this about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.238.65 (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

It's about your removal of relevant information. You're free to add the new information, but not to be disruptive by continuing to delete it. BilCat (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Well I checked rules about the lead, and I dont see how that if not made any impact can stay on the lead. Lead is general overview. I understand if it is final decision but it is not and got repealed and really seems just as advocacy and not neutral view. Maybe in the body of the article can stay but the lead?? To I try to put it in the body of that article under personnel maybe? But I would like to someone who know more do it...

Good idea. I'll move it the "Personnel" section. BilCat (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

But please update it with that new info, I just checked there wasnt any of that under personnel someone put it under lead just so it really can seems as advocacy or soapbox or so. If changed things ok but it didnt and is speculative will ever happen some. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.238.65 (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

You're right that it shouldn't have been in the lead, espw without a source. I've tried to rewrite it so it's less soap-boxy, even though I really don't have the time to do it right now. Please be careful about making work for other people. It's always best to use the article's talk page when you're not sure what to do. BilCat (talk) 02:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

My sincere apologies.

Sorry, next time I will use better judgment.

--Josephearlhebert (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Wikipedia has a steep learning curve, and it takes a while to get proficient. Take your time, and when in doubt, you can always ask on a talk page. Take care. BilCat (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hawker Hunter

Comments moved to Talk:Hawker Hunter#Hawker Hunter in Chile. BilCat (talk)

Page move

It appears Washington High School (Georgia), should be Booker T. Washington High School (Georgia). I can't move it per previous comments regarding redirects.RickH86 (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll look at it in a little while. Ping me tomorrow if I forget. :) BilCat (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Booker T. Washington High School (Georgia) is blank. You should be able to move it. Perhaps you misspelled something, or there is another issue. Would you try it again? I'll. move it if it doesn't work for you this time. BilCat (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@RickH86: Have you tried to move it again yet? I'd like to see if there's an issue with your account somewhere, as you should have been able to move it. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't but I just tried and was able to move it. Thanks RickH86 (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad it worked! BilCat (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Another one:Southwest High School (Minneapolis) should be moved to Southwest High School (Minnesota). I think that covers the cardinal directions and presidential named high schools, though I won't guarantee I didn't miss any.RickH86 (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@RickH86: Looking at it now. What about Southwest High School (San Antonio)? BilCat (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I said I might have missed some RickH86 (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

And originally I only went down this rabbit hole for the schools in Des Moines, Waterloo, and Davenport, Iowa RickH86 (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Should it be moved? BilCat (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, to Southwest High School (San Antonio, Texas)RickH86 (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it. You moved it to Southwest High School (Texas), but Southwest High School (Fort Worth, Texas) exists too. No worries, it's all straight now. I hope. :) BilCat (talk) 01:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

and I missed "Eastern" - Eastern High School (Louisville, Kentucky); Eastern High School (Pekin, Indiana) RickH86 (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Removed content

I saw at the Japan Self-Defence Forces page to user removed sourced content and to you restored that, but he did it again, seems as vandalism or user has some personal views but I checked history and seems to he really has some problem with that sourced content about China. And I checked sources and yes really mentions China and shift of focus from Soviet Union. 178.221.254.97 (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I've restored it again. BilCat (talk) 06:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC

@Telsho: Stop acting like a vandal, and you won't be treated like one. And if you have an issue with cited content, take it to the article's talk page. BilCat (talk)

And an account that's less than two months old is NOT a regular. Unless you're also a sock. BilCat (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I saw you restored that content, I don't get why is that big deal about China? Maybe we should call that guy who is the prime minister of Japan and ask him why the focus is shifted from the Soviet Union to China. And why is that published in one relevant source. :))) I don't get it, North Korea note is not removed by any editor but just that note about the focus on China is kind of big problem for some. Even if it is sourced. 178.221.254.97 (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know either. But if they keep removing it, they're likely to get blocked. BilCat (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

And they've been blocked for similar behavior. Sock blocks likely soon. BilCat (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Military

Check that article Military. User changed that rankings of militaries, blanked credit suisse source what is kind of academic and added some blog called globalfirepower as a source. I think to it is wrong and to it is just a blog and it looks like a mess. So check it maybe it is just some vandalism and that article is protected and me as IP can't revert it or change it. Cheers! 178.222.117.254 (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It's probably best if you raise the issue on that article's talk page. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Checked talk page and there is talk about to credit suisse source is relevant source and to until there is new one list by relevant source come to it is not changed. Also checked history of that article and users already reverted stuff from that blog. Here is talk page about that globalfirepower on military article. Talk page section is called "About Updating the military power comparison list Capability development section". So no consensus for change. 178.222.117.254 (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not going to get involved on that. BilCat (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

AR18 used by Dominicans

added it back, included sources, one of which is a page I manage, other is another image of an AR18 in use. Was searching for it to add prior to the edit getting undone.

https://www.facebook.com/Coldwarcollectors/photos/a.779340852089859/1401933039830634 AFAIK the original page that posted it is long dead and wasn't archived.

https://elsoldelaflorida.com/caamano-previo-a-la-batalla-del-matum/ Additional photo of an AR18 in use by an unknown rebel, photographer is unknown but is possibly Milvio Perez, since he took a few other photos in and around the Matum Hotel in Santo Domingo during the 65 civil war.

-JP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janus Primus (talk • contribs) 19:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It's been removed by another user. I recommend you go to the article's talk page instead of adding it back, and try to reach a consensus there to include the information. BilCat (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Nicknames

Originally, I would agree that an abbreviation is not a nickname. However it can be both when it enters common parlance as such, for example "....the RCAF". Fry1989 ^eh? 00:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

It's an abbreviation, not a nickname, even in that context. BilCat (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Not exactly. Compare speech patterns, saying "I was in the R-C-A-F" which clearly defines it as an abbreviation, with "I was in the AR-CAF" pronouncing it as if it were an actual word or name. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I've never heard that one, and wouldn't it be spelled R-CAF, not RCAF? Anyway, you should probably seek a consensus at the infobox page before doing this on more articles. BilCat (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Which redirect suppression criteria applied?

When you moved Talk:Southwest High School (Minneapolis) to Talk:Southwest High School (Minnesota), you did so without leaving a redirect. Which one of the redirect suppression criteria do you believe applied here? I don't see any that seem to, so for now, I've created the redirect. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I did a page swap. No redirect suppression was applied. BilCat (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Before your page swap, there was a page at Talk:Southwest High School (Minneapolis), and after it, there was nothing there. Per the move log, you did indeed apply redirect suppression. (That would have been correct if you were swapping the talk pages too, but there wasn't another talk page to swap with.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: Ah, I use a Swap script that does all of that automatically. I'm genuinely not sure what your issue here is, however. In doing regular page moves, I usually move the talk page also, but often an admin comes along and deletes the talk page redirect. So color me confused! I realize that as a page mover, I should understand what's going on, but I honestly don't. However, I won't make any more page swaps until I do understand what is correct in such situations. BilCat (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll check out the script and see if it can be made to behave better. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Ahecht/Scripts/pageswap is modified version of Andy Wang's script. Would it address this issue? BilCat (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

My apologies if my initial responses seemed flippant. This is the first time someone has raised this issue with me, but once I looked at WP:PMRC, I realized it is a serious one. BilCat (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: I went ahead and switched to User:Ahecht/Scripts/pageswap, as I think it's easier to use, and gives me more options. BilCat (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I did some testing myself. If you do a page swap and choose to swap the talk pages too, when only one of the two pages being swapped has a talk page, the redirect will be improperly suppressed. I'll try to get the scripts modified to handle that better. In the meantime, there's two ways you can avoid the problem: either make sure you choose not to swap the talk pages unless both pages being swapped have them, or just make sure you create the missing redirect yourself in that situation (which Ahecht's script will ask you to do automatically). Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. BilCat (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Removed content regarding Boulton Paul Defiant.

Hi, you removed the following content on the Boulton Paul Defiant page:

A full-scale replica Defiant was created on site at Boulton Paul in Wolverhampton by ex Boulton Paul engineer Jack Holmes and team at the Boulton Paul Heritage Society. A total of 50000+ man hours went into its production and it was unveiled in 2003 marking 60 years since the last Defiant flew out of Penderford [the World War Two training airfield next to the Boulton Paul Factory in Wolverhampton]. Due to change of ownership at the Boulton Paul site, the Defiant faced losing its home in Wolverhampton, and in 2015 was relocated to its now permanent home on display at the Kent Battle of Britain Museum.

This information is largely backed up with an already present link to citation #53, can you please advise which part of this doesn't "refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media"? Or am I making up that my grandfather did this? As he's just passed away I thought that "A full-scale model Defiant has been made in the UK and is on display in a Battle of Britain day fighter scheme" didn't really do part of his lifetimes work justice.

Keen to get this resolved and amended asap.

JWH27 (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@JWH27: My sincere condolences on your loss. As far as the content goes, you can only add information that is in a published reliable source. Anything that you know from personal knowledge that is not in the cited source shouldn't ne included, even if you know it to be true. This applies to everyone who uses Wikipedia, not just you, so it's not that we don't believe you. All content on Wikipedia is supposed to cite reliable sources so that anyone else can verify the information is in the source. It doesn't have to be a source on the internet, but it does have to be published and available somewhere. I hope that make sense. BilCat (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand, but it is all in the article citation 53 that was already there before I made the amendment, I merely added more of the information from the citation. Surely that's allowed? JWH27 (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

As long as it's in the source, and you rewrite it in your own words, yes. BilCat (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Memphis

The fact that there was a RM involving making the Egyptian one primary does demonstrate that editors aren't completely sure which one is truly primary, as I noted at the 2018 discussion. Interestingly there was another case where there was no clear consensus which out of several topics were primary at Talk:Hearts last year where users were saying that the card game, organ (and possibly the suit) were primary and in the 2011 discussion at Talk:Hearts (card game)#Primary topic it was argued that the organ, suit, symbol and sports club were more primary. In such case moving the DAB to the base name was the obvious answer but this decision was challenged due to the argument that there was no consensus for that because the organ should be primary. And as someone in England I only knew the organ and suit. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: I have no idea what point you're trying to make, or why, or even how it relates to my comment. BilCat (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

This wasn't specifically about you're comment at the recent RM, I was pointing out that there's been a number of debates about the primacy of Memphis and that that suggests that there was not consensus that either should be, since you have suggested that RM discussions where there is no consensus should automatically default to there being no primary topic this would be a good example? Though it doesn't matter anyway since the DAB is at the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, ok, thanks. I understand now. BilCat (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You know who

You know who. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

User:179.53.156.160. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Wondering if a range block might be the appropriate way to go. Would you agree and would you know how to go about seeking implementation? Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Yup, that's them. I don't think they stay on a single IP range long enough to matter, and there may be collateral damage too, though that's beyond my expertise. BilCat (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Did WarnerMedia acquire Sesame Workshop in the future?

Since Sesame Street now airs on HBO Max, is there a chance to let WarnerMedia acquire Sesame Workshop in the future after the 2022 film directed by Jonathan Krisel?

Uncivil editor Mark Lincoln

As an involved editor, I would greatly appreciate your participation in the ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Uncivil editor Mark Lincoln — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you again, but the ANI discussion of Mark Lincoln has become increasingly bizarre and I don't think I can progress it on my own. Maybe I should retire from it? Any further participation from you would be most welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 00:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I probably should've double-checked my edit summary for this edit

Hey there, BilCat. TFESS here. Instead of me saying that there is not really the same taste, I should've said that there was not really an improvement because the two words "company" and "corporation" are synonyms. It would be like changing the sentence "The sum of x and y is z" to "Adding x and y together yields z." But even if I put the edit summary "Revert - not an improvement (?)," would the revert still be fine or no? Thanks. T^{fess up?}_{or down?} 15:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

While "company" and "corporation" can be used synonymously, they do have different though overlapping meanings. Since "Volkswagen AG" is incorporated, calling it a "corporation" is probably best. If you still believe "company" is a better. choice, you're welcome to raise the issue on Talk:Volkswagen Group, and try to build a consensus to change it. BilCat (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

All right, thanks for the information! Now that you raise up this point, "corporation" seems to be better. mea culpa, if I may use the Latin. T^{fess up?}_{or down?} 16:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

JoinOnin

User:JoinOnIn has resumed activities, big time. I've made a start at reverting them but there's some way to go, if you get a chance to pitch in. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I think I've reverted the bulk of their recent activities now but clearly they may carry on. 12:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm on late sleep schedule. I'll take a look as soon as I can. BilCat (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, the backlog has been addressed and I think it's in hand for the time being. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The IP has also been blocked. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on all that. He/They are strange ones, that's for sure. BilCat (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The Oxford comma obsession aside, the mundane pointlessness of the bulk of their edits baffles me. And the persistence in the face of having their work continuously expunged. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia attracts a lot of users with issues such as autism, OCD, etc. I have some tendencies that are similar to both of those, so I'm not being critical per se. But much of the WP:CIR issues on Wikipedia is probably due to things like these. The whole Scots Wiki fiasco seemed to the result of someone with OCD of some sort being unsupervised for far too long, both on- and off-wiki. Mandatory registration with a graduated level of editing rights would help aliviate this issue greatly, but unfortunately the WMF still views Wikipedia as they did when it was founded in 2002. A lot has changed since 2006 when I joined; dynamic IPs were no where near as common back then, and in that sense open editing made much more sense than it does now. We didn't have near as many "professional" trolls back then either, not to mention national efforts to "sanitize" WP from countries such as Russia and China. BilCat (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Re autism, OCD, the very same has occurred to me. I have, though, seen instances of such editors starting out similarly highly problematically and unwittingly destructively and transforming into highly productive editors; in one case almost beyond belief compared to their previous form. Not much sign of this happening for this individual so far, I'd have to say... Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Lately at User:201.229.238.196. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

RE: Edits to USS Carl Vinson page

I appreciate the notification. I edited the page to flesh out the time period from 1985-1988. I was onboard the Carl Vinson as a crew member for almost four years. The specific dates and places I pulled from the ship's official records (hhttps://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/research/archives/command-operations-reports/ships/c/carl-vinson-cvn-70-i.html). The small details are from my own memory and journals I compiled during my time in the Navy (1985-2005). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.204.242.53 (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I am now registered and posting under the name WestPacSailor, if you'd like to reach me via talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WestPacSailor (talk • contribs) 02:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@WestPacSailor: On Wikipedia, we have to cite reliable published sources. That means you can't rely on memory or personal journals. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

See also original research and why we don't accept that on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Alenia C-27J Spartan revision

can I ask you why did you decided to Clean-up/Corrections to my changes to this article, Alenia_C-27J_Spartan? I just want to understand if I made something wrong. Xister-reply (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Primarily, I was removing a bunch of useless spaces added to the infobox by Wikipedia:VisualEditor during your edit. It's just a pet peeve of mine. I also restored "Alenia" to the title in the lead. This needs to match the article title. Wikipedia uses common names in article titles, and so, in aircraft articles, it often doesn't match the current manufacturer's name, in this case "Leonardo". This is also done for historical aircraft titles. For example, we use Blackburn Buccaneer, not "Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer Buccaneer". BilCat (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Raytheon

I noticed that Template:Raytheon was moved to Template:Raytheon Company. Are you going to replace the transclustions to Template:Raytheon with Template:Raytheon Company? Please {{ping}} me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: I didn't change the transclusions because Template:Raytheon still redirects to Template:Raytheon Company. Feel free to update them if you believe it's necessary. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Reply - It does now, I just changed it. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: That's a bit unclear, but I assume you meant that former template name redirects to the latter name because you changed it today. However, you were the one who changed it on Nov. 2, and apparently didn't check the transclusions at that time. If you feel enough time has passed for Template:Raytheon Technologies to be the redirect for Template:Raytheon, then go ahead and make the necessary changes. I won't object. BilCat (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Reply - Sorry, my mistake. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: Non worries. Ive make two mony mistaken on Wikidepia too held a grudje. :) BilCat (talk)

2011 UH-60 Royal Thai Air Force Accident

Regarding Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk#Accidents

Hi, I hope the cite web I added using Summary for 2011 Incidents by the Thai Government's Defense Technology Institute meets notable and citation requirements. I don't speak Thai, but with the magic of Google regional search engine google.th.co and Google Translate, I found an authoritative source. Impressively, the machine translation handles the localization of the year from our 2011 to their 2554.

I also did a little copy editing of the original text. It had some oddities that non-native English speakers have in their prose.

Sadly, I had no idea of the multiple crashes in July 2011 in Thailand. It was a really bad month for those flying in helicopters. :( --Lent (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Nakajima aircraft

Hi Bill: Thanks for solving that nav box situation. One technical question: how did you do that? - Ahunt (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I moved Pete's recreation to Draft:Template:Nakajima aircraft, with "Leave a redirect behind" unchecked. Then I moved the original back, also with "Leave a redirect behind" unchecked. Simple for a page mover. I thought about moving the recreation to Pete's userspace last night, using the same procedure. I'm still flummoxed by why Pete did a cut/paste recreation, but that's not new . :) BilCat (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I have "page mover" powers, too, which is why I asked. It was a "round robin move" to draft-space which you then have nominated for CSD! That is a smart way to do it. Now why he did that, who knows? We have had past issues with other editors "drunk editing", perhaps this was similar? - Ahunt (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I know you're a page mover, which is why I mentioned it. :) No, a round robin would involve moving the draft back to the "military" title. It could still be done that way, but I didn't see the need. As to drunk editing, I don't know if that's an issue with him or not, but it has been with other users in the past.

Btw, did you see the revert on the EA-260 page about there being six built? The single source implies only one was built, but I don't know anything about that aircraft type. BilCat (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I should add that I was having an off-wiki discussion on how to fix this when you fixed it (much appreciated). My main issue was in trying to figure out what Pete had actually done. It looks like he moved Template:Nakajima aircraft to Template:Nakajima military aircraft and then cut 'n pasted the content from Template:Nakajima military aircraft back to Template:Nakajima aircraft, creating two identical nav boxes, although not identical page histories, due to the cut 'n paste move. Then you moved the cut 'n pasted Template:Nakajima aircraft to Draft:Template:Nakajima aircraft, nominated it for CSD and then moved Template:Nakajima military aircraft back to Template:Nakajima aircraft. I guess the only difference between what you and I can do (as page movers) and what an admin can do is that an admin would have deleted his cut 'n pasted Template:Nakajima aircraft and then just moved Template:Nakajima military aircraft back to Template:Nakajima aircraft. Page movers need to be a bit more tactical and find a place to move it to. My biggest problem was trying to follow what Pete did, so it could be fixed. By comparison, all your moves make sense! - Ahunt (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes I did read the ref cited for the EA-260 article as I formatted it. It is pretty clear that only one was built. The IP would need to present some actual evidence that more were built. The FAA registry shows none in the US. The museum one, N618PW, was deregistered in 2015. - Ahunt (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. BilCat (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Phantom 260?

(talk page stalker)Steve Carver does appear to claim that G-EXTR is a EA-260, and Jetphotos, Flightradar24 and Planefinder all list it as a 260. However, Jetphotos also has a single photo listing G-EXTR as a EA-230. Barring a RS to the contrary, my gut tells me any "extra" (ha!) -260s were built as EA-230s and modified to EA-260 configuration post-manufacture. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The British registry shows G-EXTR as a EA-260 for what that is a worth. It does not mean it was not built as a 230, however. - Ahunt (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks both.

@The Bushranger: Can you delete Draft:Template:Nakajima aircraft? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Consider it done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! BilCat (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Jerm (talk) has given you a Turkey! Turkeys promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a turkey, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Thanksgiving! Spread the goodness of turkey by adding {{subst:Thanksgiving Turkey}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

• Thanks. You also. BilCat (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving Bilcat! I hope all is well with you and yours, and you enjoy a peaceful holiday! Yours, Simon Adler (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, with family this year. Good to see you around again. BilCat (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

I was reading up on how to reference when I noticed it gone. I hope I did it right. I also changed the date format to match other entries. I will also be entering Operation Eagle Claw. 24 April 1980, an RH-53D crashed into a EC-130 as it was attempting to air taxi. The resulting fire destroyed both aircraft and killed eight servicemen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw I was at that time onboard the USS Ike with the helicopters that were supposed to be used in the rescue attempt. They didn't wait for us and used the "High time" helicopters on hand to gain an element of surprise. The results...

FYI: I was the assigned Crew Chief for the Marine pilot of the MH-53E that crashed off SF aircraft until I left the squadron a few months prior to the crash. I lost some very good friends that day.

TLDR: I'm learnin' Telymanbws (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

No worries. We all have a pretty steep learning curve when we first joined Wikipedia. Also, thanks for your service. My dad was in the Army during Vietnam era, but fortunately they didn't need his specialty over there (repairing test equipment for tactical nukes). BilCat (talk) 11:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hoggardhigh

New geolocation but unmistakeable: User:107.134.16.11. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

They originally started out in the Wilmington area, so that's definitely them. BilCat (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Aha! Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Trainbeau. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Omni Coliseum

Please quit removing the Concert history of The Omni Coliseum. I have sourced the listings there and they keep getting removed. I also had sourced content removed on another subject. These seem to be personal against me for no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.143.103 (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)It's not personal - but it's also not notable. Wikipedia is not a directory of simple facts. A concert venue holding concerts is not worthy of mentioning in the article. Furthermore setlist.fm is user-generated content and thus is not a reliable source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Bell Hovercraft

I'm sorry if I'm missing something, but I don't see why the hovercraft information should go on the Bell Aircraft and not the Bell Textron article. It seems that all hovercraft designs related to Bell were produced after 1960, when the company was purchased by Textron, and since everything from 1960 on goes on the Bell Textron article, the hovercraft should be placed there as well. I called the article I transferred the section to "Bell Helicopter", but it is technically titled "Bell Textron" – which is who you say built the hovercraft. Unless Bell Aerospace Textron in some way a different company from Bell Textron? –Noha307 (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they are different. Bell Textron was Bell Helicopter (Textron) until a few years ago, one of 3 divisions that Textron created from Bell when they bought it in 1960. One of the other divisions was Bell Aerospace Textron, which was absorbed into another Textron division some years back. BilCat (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. (These corporate shell games are confusing.) I take it that there's not another, more Bell Aerospace Textron-pertinent article that the hovercraft could go on? Since the Bell Aircraft article essentially ends at 1960, it doesn't seem like they belong there. –Noha307 (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Your comment is inconsistent with guideline Help:Maintenance template removal

diff. -- SeparatorTransformTable (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

You've not explained in detail on the article's talk page wnay the tag is necessary, or even in your edit summary, as required by the tag itself. That's why I removed it, in addition to it being unnecessary, as the article does present other views. BilCat (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey Bill

Knowing how you feel about MilPop, I was wondering if you have 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne)#In popular culture on your watchlist? There is an ip user that keeps re-adding the same fluff over and over. Could you take a look, see what you think? Cheers - wolf 15:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll pass for now. BilCat (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanksgiving?

I see you are editing over the weekend. I thought you were away visiting relatives, so I assume you are having a boring time! (At least that is what I do, edit Wikipedia while visiting relatives who fail to hold my attention...) - Ahunt (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

We all get some personal time day, so I'm online then. I could be more specific, just not on an open forum. BilCat (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Make it home safely? - Ahunt (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Supposed to leave late tomorrow morning. BilCat (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I hope you have a really uneventful trip! - Ahunt (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

We got back home safe and sound. The trip was mostly, tho we had about 30-minute delay at one airport, where they apparently switched out a CRJ900 for a CRJ200 for some unexplained reason. We also connected through Atlanta, where we saw a restored Delta DC-7B sitting on the flightline. It's apparently waiting for the Delta Flight Museum, once it reopens again after Covid, assuming there ever is an after! BilCat (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Glad to hear you got home okay. Hopefully you didn't catch anything en route. We're planning for after COVID here at least, have bought enough vaccines to do the whole country five times over, as soon as it is approved - even have the needles all bought and ready. The DC-7B sounds pretty neat, worth some photos once things settle down again. - Ahunt (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The CRJ's windows were so low compared to the seats that I was barely able to see out the window, much less snap a photo of it. I wasn't sure what it was at first, whether a DC-4, -6, or -7. But as we got closer, I saw it had "DC-7" painted on the tail. I'd love to visit the museum on another stopover someday, if possible. BilCat (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a plan for the brave new world! - Ahunt (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I had actually forgotten that I'd had made this edit. There is a source for some of it the Delta Museum article, but I'll have to look for more, perhaps from some Atlanta-area sources. The plane appeared to be parked at the end of one of the passenger concourses, not a hangar such as where I assume the museum is. BilCat (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

How are you doing since you got home? Still feeling okay there? - Ahunt (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty much back to my new normal. I'll be going back there in April for another week. So far, I'm not scheduled on any Airbuses this time. We flew on an A19 and 2 A320s last time, and I can't say I'm impressed. I always did prefer Boeings and McDs, having flown on a lot of 727s and DC-9s in the 70s and 80s. We also flew on some L-1011s back then, and they were more solid feeling to me also, while I didn't care for the A300s. I flew on some 737s and 757s in the late 90s/early 2000s, and preferred them too. To my knowledge, I've never flown on a 747, but I think I've been a 767 a time or too. Can't remember for certain. I liked the CRJ200 we flew on this time, though it was quite old. I'm supposed to take a 900 this next time, so hopefully that will be a little newer. I do have a long stopover in Atlanta on one of the legs, so I hope I'll get a chance to see the Delta museum. This is about all I can say in an open forum, especially about personal matters. BilCat (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Glad that you didn't at least catch anything en route! You never know, may be next time you will get to fly on a newly ungrounded 737 MAX! Perhaps they will give out t-shirt for it.- Ahunt (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with flying on a MAX flown by a North American airline, but I don't think the airline I'm using this time has bought any MAXs. BilCat (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

You won't get your t-shirt! I was thinking it should say I risked my life on a Boeing 737 MAX and all I got was this lousy t-shirt... - Ahunt (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Recentism. The DC-10 and L-1011 had much worse reputations than the MAX, and they worked out those issues just fine. The MAX will too. BilCat (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh I am sure it will. After all it has been subject to more scrutiny that any other airliner in recent history. It would be fun to have t-shirts from those aircraft too, plus the Comet .... . - Ahunt (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

You could always make and sell the T-shirts yourself. Free.enterprise at work. BilCat (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

...and life insurance too, just like they used to sell in airline terminals in the 1960s! - Ahunt (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Truculent Turtle

Hello, BilCat. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Truculent Turtle".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

They really need to give notices for these things. Sheesh. BilCat (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Christine Fang for deletion

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

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

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

F-5 "Similar aircraft"

Hi BilCat; it was me (under an IP number) who changed the listing to include the F-104, Mirage III, Draken etc.

In short, there should probably be a separate article about the F-5E, because it's the most significant variant, with significantly different performance and sub-systems, compared to the prototype.

In any case, this article is about all variants of the F-5. It first flew in 1959 and entered service a few years later; as such, the MiG-21 is a true contemporary.

The F-5 was a rival in the fighter marketplace of the 1960s/early 1970s to the Draken, F-4, F-8/A-7, F-104, Mirage III and the MiG-21/Chengdu J/F-7 family.

Hence the F-5 is not a true contemporary of the G.91 and Mirage F1, both of which first entered flew around '67/'68 and entered service in the early '70s.

Also, despite the unenthusiasm of the USAF, which used the F-5 only briefly as a "bomb truck" in Vietnam, it is a true light fighter; some pilots have become aces on it – e.g. at least one Ethiopian has and probably at least one Taiwanese pilot. Whereas the G.91 has (afaik) negligible or zero air to air capabilities. Grant | Talk 04:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'd agree that the F-5E/F should probably be split out; like the F/A-18 to F/A-18E/F it was the nameplate being jacked up and an enlarged development being slid under it Because Reasons. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I've been in favor of splitting the articles for years. Feel free to propose it. BilCat (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

A Joyous Yuletide to You!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello BilCat, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 16:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Yo Ho Ho

M.Bitton (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.