Misplaced Pages

User talk:BilCat: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:59, 19 September 2013 editNick Thorne (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,987 edits →Carriers - where to from here?← Previous edit Revision as of 08:16, 19 September 2013 edit undoBilCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers215,813 edits →Carriers - where to from here?: ReplyNext edit →
Line 138: Line 138:


Yes, I know, but hypocrisy just pushes my buttons. - ] ] 07:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Yes, I know, but hypocrisy just pushes my buttons. - ] ] 07:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

:We're trying to give him some ]. - ] (]) 08:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:16, 19 September 2013

SEMI-RETIRED This user is no longer very active on Misplaced Pages as of December 1, 2011.
This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BilCat.
Archiving icon
Archives

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.


Barelinks

Hi, I thought a bot or automated tool editors come along and fix - so worth it. I'm fixing up DABs so I often drive-by without time. The danger being more bare refs get added without the tag. I shall leave for you to do the quick fix. Widefox; talk 11:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Issues with F-35 recent revert?

Hi BilCat. I was wondering about your thinking behind the reversion. It was reliably sourced, and was in the problems section. I had not been aware of that issue. You say alarmist. Damn right to be alarmed if it is going to be "The Free worlds" 21st century replacement for the F-16 (as I see its place anyway) It merely adds to the growing and well-sourced raft of issues she seems to have. Happy to support a reversion back if you have any compelling thoughts? Cheers! Irondome (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Who says it's an "issue"? The blog merely reports what some test pilots said. We've no context for it. The comparison to the Hornet in that post implys it's normal and not unexpected. Besides, and typical for an HCobb edit, the blog doesn't attribute the issue to high drag, as does HC. - BilCat (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Umm. I take on board the point about high drag, but the source does indicate no less than 3 aerobatic manoevres required to achieve Mach 1.6 while creating a huge fuel consumption. I must say, that is the most worrying thing about 35 performance or tech issues I have seen. It sounds bizarre. Cheers Irondome (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree it sounds bizarre, but we don't have enough info to make a judgement against it. WP is Not News, or even a blog - we don't report everything that's reported just because it's been reported, contrary to what HCobb does. - BilCat (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
So what do we do? Tag it dubious? There must be a tag which covers it without totally removing it, pending consensus? Its your call. Cheers Irondome (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
HC has opened a discussion on the article's talk page, so we can respond there, and see what the consensus ends up being. - BilCat (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120118/DEFREG02/301180013/F-35-May-Miss-Acceleration-Goal The F-35 Lightning II’s transonic acceleration may not meet the requirements originally set forth for the program, a top Lockheed Martin official said. “Based on the original spec, all three of the airplanes are challenged by that spec,” said Tom Burbage, Lockheed’s program manager for the F-35. “The cross-sectional area of the airplane with the internal weapons bays is quite a bit bigger than the airplanes we’re replacing.” The sharp rise in wave drag at speeds between Mach 0.8 and Mach 1.2 is one of the most challenging areas for engineers to conquer. And the F-35’s relatively large cross-sectional area means, that as a simple matter of physics, the jet can’t quite match its predecessors.

Here's the point about the drag. Hcobb (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
So its aerodynamically "too fat"? Is it a power or an aerodynamic design issue? Or both? I just want to get my head around this conceptually first. Irondome (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Please take this discussion back to the F-35 talk page, where others can see it and participate there. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Irondome invited him here. I'll give Henry a pass on that one, as he knew better than to post his lipstick/fat pig comment here! In any case, the real fat pig is the F-35 article, and we all know who's been feeding it! - BilCat (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
oops. Irondome (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
No problem, Irondome. You didn't know! That's why I simply asked for the conversation to be continued at the F-35 talk page, which it has. Several other editors have supported my position there. - BilCat (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

OK then...

If you're going to delete the section I added on WHERE the SSGNs are home ported (See Ohio class article's External Links), then please add that info back in in a more appropriate location.
LP-mn (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You know...

...for a "retired guy", you're pretty active. ; )

But, anyway, since you are around and do seem to have an interest, is there a chance of you joining any discussions on the Aircraft carrier talk page?

Thanks - thewolfchild 02:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm semi-retired, by which I mean I'm not active across a wide range of articles as I used to be, and I can withdraw from heated arguments without feeling like WP will fall apart without my input. As to getting involved in the "discussion", if any actually occurs to the point of trying to establish a clear consensus, I will. Note that there is no clear definition of what an aircraft carrier is, or there would be no argument about what to include or not include on the article. Rather than argue about our personal definitions, WP relies on reliable sources. Where they disagree, we present all views where possible, and where we need to choose one over another, we follow consensus among the editors. Often that will mean parties on either extreme won't be happy with the result, ad with most compromises. - BilCat (talk) 03:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:! - thewolfchild 07:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
By which you mean to say what? - BilCat (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Just that. - thewolfchild 20:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
It means nothing to me. Someone else (Nick T) has responded on the talk page, and I pretty much concur with what he's said there. I may post something myself later today or tomorrow. - BilCat (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

About those Robinsons

It's now hit ANI! - The Bushranger One ping only 03:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Your accidental revert on my talk page

I managed to do this a few days ago using my PC, so I feel your pain for the nook accident! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear! Yes, odd things do sometimes happen on WP. It would be nice if they could make confirmation optional on rollbacks, or else a lot of editors may have to give up rollback rights because of their tablets and phones. - BilCat (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Splitting up

As in someone's feet might be cold due to... Well, you know, or something else? As to GLCM, I guess an old ground-launched cruise missile is now editing WP. Be on the look-out for Apple's Siri to start editing soon! - BilCat (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Georgia Flag

Hi, BilCat. Regarding the nickname of the Georgia flag. I honestly wasn't thinking of "established" usage here at Misplaced Pages when I left that note. I intended to say that the real world nickname, here in Georgia, has never been "Georgian" Stars & Bars. I don't think that your average Georgian uses "Georgian" to refer to anything other than people from the state, or (to a much lesser degree, and then only if they have a degree from Georgia Tech, and not UGA) that era of British history from 1714-1830. You are quite correct to point out the fact that Misplaced Pages has used the wrong term for well over a year. But I hope precedent doesn't trump reality. btw, like your work!!! Gulbenk (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Either way, it should probably be cited to a reliable source somewhere. Although it's an obvious nickname, that doesn't in and of itself make the nickname common. I've n ever heard it used. - BilCat (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

AIM-7

Can you show a source that says the 13% figure for the E2 is for 1972 only? The books referenced only say 13%, no year is specified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z07x10 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries whe making such changes. We have no way of knowing why you make changes without an explanation, aside from obvious stuff like vandalism, and it'll be easier do just do that in your first edit. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill  16:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Carriers - where to from here?

Hi Bill, our friend has just made another rant again (8.5k this time) on the aircraft carrier talk page. I find his whole approach exasperating and am wondering just exactly whare do we go from here? Do we list the issue at DRN, or should the matter be taken to AN/I? I am finding his increasingly shrill posting to be very disturbing, to say the least. - Nick Thorne 05:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. I hate getting involved with WP:TEND-type editors in the first place. The never use a sentence where six paragraphs will do, and they never admit wrong doing on their own part. It usually takes years tom get rid of them, as with Mick MacNee Wolfkeeper, and Tenmei. Perhaps not commenting on his behavior from this point on would be the best, no matter what he says. I know you're more than capable of taking the high road than he is. - BilCat (talk) 06:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. I'll just have to suck it up. Thanks, mate. - Nick Thorne 07:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but hypocrisy just pushes my buttons. - Nick Thorne 07:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

We're trying to give him some WP:ROPE. - BilCat (talk) 08:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)