Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:20, 5 August 2009

If you leave a message for me: I will generally respond here. Either add this page to your watchlist or ask me to notify you of a response on your talk page. If I leave a message for you: Please respond on your talk page. I will add it to my watchlist, so you don't need to notify me, unless I don't respond when a response is expected (normally within 24 hours, unless the issue is urgent). This helps keep discussions in one place and makes them easier to read and follow. If you are discussing an article: I would prefer to use that article's talk page, unless you'd rather not to use that page for some reason, such as commenting on a particular user's edits in semi-privacy. Please limit this page to discussions not related to any particular article, those covering a wide range of articles/topics, or personal comments. Note: I reserve the right to decline or withdraw from a situation that is escalating or uncomfortable, without giving a reason, or to take further action through persmissable means. (See this policy.)

Archives

Archive 1 - 2006 Archive 2 - January - March 2007 Archive 3 - April - May 2007 Archive 4 - June - July 2007 Archive 5 - August - September 2007 Archive 6 - October - November 2007 Archive 7 - December 2007 - February 2008 Archive 8 - March 2008 - May 2008 Archive 9 - June 2008 - August 2008 Archive 10 - September 2008 - November 2008 Archive 11 - December 2008 - March 2009 Archive 12 - April 2009 - June 2009

NOTES

• Due to the misbehavior of a few IPs, IPs are sometimes prevented from editing this page. If you need to discuss an article, see the previous note. If you need to discuss something else with me, register, and come back in four days. If it's urgent, use the e-mail feature; it won't work if it's been abused lately. If you chose to whine on an admin complaint board somewhere, I'll probably hear about it. And ignore you. ;) PS. if you posted the type of comments on my page that you would post on an admin alert board, they would have been ignored and removed anyway!

• Most comments will be archived about once a month. Critical comments are welcome, but those containing highly-offensive or profane material will be deleted immediately, and the overall content ignored.

• NO BOTS ALLOWED!! You'll have post here yourself!

• Also, talk to me like a normal person, and don't just quote Wiki guidelines to me - I'm NOT a newbie . (Policies are somewhat different). I consider it rude, and will likely just delete your comments, and ignore the point, as guidleines can be ignored. If you do it anyway, and turn out to be wrong, an apology would be the considerate thing to make, though you probably won't since it's not policy to apologize for your mistakes. (If Jimbo wnated people to apologize for their mistakes, he'd have made it a policy, right?!)

• If you want me to take your opinions and edits seriously, you ought to Register!. Otherwise one never knows who really made the edits, especially in the case of dynamic IP addresses.

• If I mistakenly called your edits as vandalism when I reverted them, it was probably because you did not leave an edit summary. Please realize that, in many cases, unexplained edits are indistinguishable from vandalism! This also applies to Rollbacks.

• I reserve the right to clean up this page in any manner I chose, including the use of Rollbacks for non-vandalism, and especially if you made more than one edit. Please do NOT repost what I've removed, unless you are an admin issuing a formal warning, though I'll probably still remove it!

• If you wish to keep a matter confidential,such as disscussing personal and/or confidential information, you may use the "E-mail" feature (usually activated!). I will respond in kind unless otherwise requested. This is not for discussing routine matters regarding editing on pages - use the article talk pages for that.

Thanks.

• Title Case May Be Used in Headings on This Page

• Me, myself, and I use serial commas.

"Vomit Comet"

Hi, please discuss: Talk:Vomit_Comet#title_-_Reduced_gravity_aircraft_vs._Vomit_Comet. -- Flipote (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

API Blowback controversy

I have been very sick for two days, and I'm not going to deal with this right now - OK? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Hope you feel better soon, Bill. Take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much! - BillCJ (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Tennessee Titans

Question for you or other interested parties at Talk:Tennessee Titans — Bdb484 (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

New user name?

Hi Bill! I see you have a new user name? Did you wear out the old one? - Ahunt (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a certain "highly intelligent" user from Italy kept confusing me with User:BillC, and I want to save BillC from any embarrasment. ;) - BilCat (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I know him: Nice guy, gets along with everyone, makes smart edits? Well no sweat, the rest of us know you! Happy editing. - Ahunt (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

And he speaks excellent English! ;) - BilCat (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to change my name to Bi1cat now. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me - I don't care if he insults you! The resulting row would be fun to watch! :) - BilCat (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Some guy ANI

I have started an ANI discussion on Some guy: WP:ANI#Some guy You may want to comment there. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination.

Hello,

I was looking to nominate you for adminship through RFA. When I first started on Misplaced Pages you helped me through a tight spot with the Joseph Armand Bombardier article. Looking through all of your edits I contently see a constructive editor who knows the policies of Misplaced Pages and what to do in every situation. How would you feel about that? Thanks and keep up the great work!--Gordonrox24 |  13:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you very much for thinking of me! However, my temperment is not really suited to being the type of admin that the "community" seems to want: I "suffer fools badly", I have a quick temper, I think newbie bad behaivior is actually bad, I extend the benefit of the doubt to experienced users who seem to be having a bad day, rather than jump on them with both feet and ignore their "tormentors" (as has often happened to me), and I actually think protecting the product of WP is more important than protecting the feeling of people, especially vandals, POV warriors, and tenditious editors. I say that somewhat tongue in cheek, but look at User talk:John for a recent example of a good admin being thrown under the bus by the wiki-elite for similar qualities. Personally, I not really at a point where I can handle the added responsibilities - and grief! - of being an admin,and I doubt that will change in the near future. In fairness to others, I do tend to edit more contentiously that desired by many, and that would weigh in against me too. I'm quick to revert - I find that gets a quicker response in most cases, especially when dealing with IPs, but they usually resent it, accuse me of ownership, and so on. So again, while I do genuinely appreciate your offer in good faith, I must decline. Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No Problem!--Gordonrox24 |  18:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger for Redistribution

I made comments on the talk Talk: Redistribution SADADS (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

DST

Based on your userboxes, you might like {{User:Bwilkins/Userboxes/screwdst}} this one (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd rather go back to Local Time! :) - BilCat (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Y-9 Status...

FYI, Y-9 project is in fact stuck. Here are some links on its most up-to-date status:

http://www.shanfei.com/xwzx/new/20090713,1.html

The page is in Chinese, and the gist is that Y-9 project experienced repeated delays, and Shanfei (the developer) is reshuffling the management structure in order to jump start the program. The document cites unbalanced department workload, lack of research capability, project planning, funding, in addition to a shortage of parts, limited parts assembly lines and final assembly, and limited test flight capabilities as the primary reasons for the slow progress. There were also technology limitations, frequent accidents due to low safety standards, poor quality control, undefined procedures and poor production work flows that led to a serious delay of the project, etc...

The reason I removed Y-9 from the airbus article is because I found it difficult to keep it there as it has not even made a maiden flight yet. I understand the airbus project is also experiencing difficulties, but the development is almost done. So I think on balance it'd be too much of a boast to keep Y-9 in the article. By78 (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

By that reasoning we should remove the A400M from all pages of aircraft that have flown. While I understand your point, you need to keep WP:AIR/PC's guidelines in mind: Comparable aircraft: are those of similar role, era, and capability to this one. This will always be somewhat subjective, of course, but try to keep this as tight as possible. Again, some aircraft will be one-of-a-kind and this line will be inappropriate. It's not rocket science, it's just a list of similar aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you are right, but man, it just doesn't feel right ;) Y-9 is not even an aircraft yet, much less a similar aircraft to the airbus. Sigh, I got your point. Will keep Y-9 listed.By78 (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Give it some time, and if it turns out it's been totally cancelled, then we could remove it. Anyway, it's an attempt by the Chinese, and the failed attempts speak just as loud as the successes about a country's capabilities - or lack of them! Why do think you have so much difficulty with the premature additions of the projects from India? When you've had no real successes, even the attempts are worth celebrating - to them, anyway! - BilCat (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well said, and cheers ;) By78 (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Lycoming O-360

Dear Bill: Thanks for your note. Yes you are quite right Lycoming and Continental both produced different engines (the Lycoming is a four cylinder and the Continental is a six) with the same O-360 designation. Otherwise there is no relationship between the engines. I see the changes User:Tcligon made and will have a look and sort it out. I'll also review List of Lycoming O-360 variants and see if that is all correct as well. - Ahunt (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I checked it over and he was right - those were Continental O-360s on the Lycoming page. I am pretty sure I introduced that mistake some months ago, so I am glad he caught it! I have moved the sections to the right article. - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad that looks helpful - I am still working on expanding the Continental IO-360 article. Also - yup he is working hard on that aim, I think. - Ahunt (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Future templates

Regarding this edit: Do you have any suggestions where I should advertise the guidelines? I've already started a request for comment on them, but didn't get a lot of comments. So since you seem to disagree with the guidelines, I'd be curious why you do so. :) --Conti|✉ 18:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the guidelines go against common sense and common usage. People use them because they feel they are needed - and reguluar editors in good standing too, not just newbies. If you don't want them to be used, then put them up for TFD. Otherwise, just leave them alone - they aren't hurting anyone by being used. Also, not all of our users are bright enough or see well enough to see the little itty-bitty "Disclaimer" link at the bottom of the page, and realize there is a page that supposedly says what the template does (though it not as specific as the template, which is why people use it). As to how to notify people, could a small notice be placed in each template about the RFC? It make sense, so there's probably a guidleine against it too :) - BilCat (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the latter, I'm not sure if there's a guideline against it, but I would assume that people would complain about it if a request for comment would appear in a template that is used on articles (which are for our readers, and not for our editors). I might be wrong on that, tho.

Anyhow, to the issue itself. Quite honestly, I have the impression that people use these templates because they can, and not because they feel a need to use them. I'm almost perfectly sure that people would use a "This article is about a person who has recently been married." template, too, if it would exist, but that does not mean that such a template would be a good idea. :)

Mostly I'm disputing the use of a future template on an article that makes it already quite obvious that it is indeed about a future thing/event/product. All the consequences of that (information may change, information may not be final, not all information may not be available yet) are, in my opinion, common sense, and there is no need to inform our readers that. In that sense I think these templates do hurt our credibility when we try to inform our readers of the obvious. --Conti|✉ 18:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Super, Super dooper Sabre

Yup, Pace mentions that it was an illogical yet commonplace nickname for the F-107. FWiW, I recall reading it in the magazine article and it sounded dopey but what the heck? Bzuk (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC). I had the wrong page number, but corrected it now. The actual quote is: "those working on it (the YF-107A) had already unofficially dubbed it SUPER Super Saber." (note the spelling variations. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC).

Fighter aircraft article

Hi, I've made some revisions to the fighter aircraft article and I don't think other editors will let them stay, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look and give your opinion on the talk page. Thanks! Hj108 (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Some suggestions for the Chattanooga article

I was wondering if someone could create a map of Chattanooga's location within Hamilton County, like many other cities have a map of their location within their respective counties. That would be informative. Jay (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I was also wondering if someone could do something about this. You see, I was rereading Chattanooga's history section and I realized that there was no information about Chattanooga's incorporation or anything of Chattanooga's early history beyond the American Indians affair. I and others would like to know more about Chattanooga's history before the War Between the States. Many other cities have that kind of information; why not Chattanooga, too? Jay (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

On the map, it would have to be a public-domain image it someone did not create it themself. I don't have the ability to do it, so we'd have to find someone who could. On the hisotry, it's just a matter of finding sources with the info, and citing them. Again, it's jsut a matter of someone doing it. I would think one of the Chattanooga area libraries would hve some books on the early history of the city. I live out of state (but still in the area), and I don't currently have the ability to spend a few hours in a library. Perhaps there is some info from a reliable source somewhere online. - BilCat (talk) 04:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

V redirects

I saw your undoing of redirects by Dalbacour on all V articles. He may not have any idea about the series that started it all. Good call. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, It took me a bit to figure out what the problem was, but I think you have the right idea. I left him a hopefully-nice note on his talk page about it. We'll see what he does next. - BilCat (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Unmanned aerial vehicle

Discussion currently underway regarding the "civilian deaths" section in this article. Thought you might have something to add here. ViperNerd (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to sit this one out. HC and his suddenly-appearing friends aren't worth it for me to try to argue with. I've already un-watch-listed many articles that HC edits, as his GAO-loving comments and POV edits are more than I want to deal with right now. If he keeps his crap up, I'll probably leave WP soon. This is not what I joined WP for. - BilCat (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't say that I totally disagree with you regarding HC's edit style, but in this case he's actually making the same argument that you and I are, that having a section dealing with civilian deaths in the general UAV article is giving the issue undue weight. MilbourneOne has shown up making statements along the same lines. If you were to briefly give your opinion, it might help lead toward some sort of consensus. Thanks. ViperNerd (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look. I still feel it's NPOV, as these fringe anti-war groups only protest one side of the wars - Have you ever seen one of these groups complaining how many civilians IEDs kill? I dare say not! That's because their real issue isn't anti-weapons, or even anti-war - it's anti-Western government and lifestyle. In there world view, these terrorist groups only exest because the West is EEEVIILL. Hence anythign from these protest groups is inherently POV. - BilCat (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I made that exact analogy on the Talk page. About how if this section is allowed to remain in the UAV article, then I guess we can add a similar section in the Explosive material article dealing with civilian deaths due to suicide bombings, IEDs, etc. ViperNerd (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

F-14 background

Bill, do you have any sources that give some detail on the VFX competition that led to the F-14? The sources I have basically only say Grumman did some preliminary studies for the Navy starting in 1966, then VFX started in late 1967 or '68. Grumman and McDonnell Douglas were selected as finalists in 1968 and finally Grumman was picked in 1969. I was hoping for a little more detail at F-14 Tomcat#VFX and History of the F-14 Tomcat. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There is some more detail in The Great Book of Modern Fighters, IIRC. I'll try to check later this week. - BilCat (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to add that above to the articles at least for starters. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Red links on dab pages

On this edit's summary, you said "Oops! that was a redlink - I'm not sure if redlinks count or not, so I'll leave the second link for now". The guideline is that each dab entry have exactly one blue link. If there's an article for the entry, then that's the link. If there's not, then the entry either starts with no link or a red link, and the blue link appears in the description, so that the disambiguation page can serve its function of directing readers to articles. See Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Red links. And thanks for the self-rv. :-) Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I finally found the DAB page MOS page fter my revert, and saw that. - BilCat (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Jetspecs

Did it work Bill, be useful if it did. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears to have worked. See Eurojet EJ200 to see if it dispalys correctly for your system. - BilCat (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, seems to work though I am seeing a duplicated source message at the botom of the specs, perhaps that was there before? Hope you get good with these parser function thingies as I am having problems with the av project banner coding. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that - I meant to remove it after the ref tag worked, but forgot to. It looks like it functions correctly, so feel free to add it to any other articles using Jetspecs. I have not checked out the Piston template yet, but I will try to do so later tonight or tomorrow. Btw, all I did was copy the ref coding from the Aircraft specs template - I was actually surprised it worked! - BilCat (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I looked at the RR merlin page, and the ref tags do work in the Pistonspecs template - BilCat (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably too late now as I have been doing it 'manually'. It was in the pistonspecs already or was that the aircraft specs template? Useful for new ones anyway. Been on here all day due to very wet weather, must give up in a bit. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I got it from the Aircraft specs template, but it is also in the Pistonspecs template.

Hi Bill, I'm seeing an extra line space now in the articles that use 'jetspecs', I wonder if the ref code is in the right place? The line gap is between the manually inserted cite and the top of the table, can be seen in de Havilland Gyron Junior. Nothing's ever easy here! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Another Story

Hi Bill. I haven't chatted with you and Arendecki for a long time. Hope you are well. I'd like to send you another Blackbird story that I think you will like. I've lost your email address, so can you send it to me again please at my email: dpdemp@comcast.net. Thanks. Your Habu friend.

David Dempster (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)