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 04:01, 19 December 2022 editClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,381,673 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:BilCat/archive24. (BOT)← Previous edit Revision as of 12:26, 23 December 2022 edit undoPaul 012 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers80,355 edits →Recent rollbacks: new sectionTag: New topicNext edit →
Line 93: Line 93:


:Yup. You can lead an user to a hidden note, but you can't make them read/follow it! ] (]) 23:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC) :Yup. You can lead an user to a hidden note, but you can't make them read/follow it! ] (]) 23:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

== Recent rollbacks ==

I noticed from the ] article that you recently reverted a whole bunch of edits by 2607:fea8:699b:b700:f912:9291:450c:da52, though most of them seemed unproblematic to me. Maybe you'd like to recheck the reversions? --] (]) 12:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:26, 23 December 2022

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Welcome to my user talk page
Before posting, please read and follow the notes below.

  • For matters related to article content, "use the article's talk page" (most likely on my watchlist), or use the relevant Wiki project talk page (use these for questions, requests for help or advice, etc). That's the intended purpose of these pages and will get more attention from others. Out of place posts may be removed or moved to a more appropriate talk page. Leave me a note pointing me to a discussion if necessary. Please use this page only for personal and general comments.
  • Keep conversations together - I will reply to posts on the talk page where the conversation starts.
  • Do not take changes to your article edits personally. Note the warning on each edit screen: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." I may revert unexplained (no edit summary) edits that appear unhelpful. To prevent this, provide edit summaries with understandable reason(s) to explain your intent or purpose.
  • Edits where cited text is changed may be reverted since that violates Misplaced Pages's WP:Verify policy. Please provide a reference with your changes.
  • Personal attacks will be removed. Unfair and improper criticism will be ignored or removed. Do your best to make your point without writing paragraphs and paragraphs of text. Excessively long posts will probably be ignored and removed to save space. Retaliatory warnings will be reported as harassment.
  • If your posts here are removed, please do not restore them for any reason.
  • Experienced editors are welcome to reply to posts here if they do so nicely. They are also welcome to remove vandalism or non-constructive posts. If I disagree, I'll simply restore them, so don't take that personally.
  • Add posts to the relevant section or start a new section at the bottom. Thanks.


Archiving icon
Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 14.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

2037 bomber

I have to strenuously object to calling this a "program." I'm still surprised this is even an article. I almost entirely rewrote this after failing to get support for a merge at AfD. The so-called "2037 bomber" was actually a 1999 Air Force plan to put off development of strategic bombers until 2013. Given the tremendous backlash this paper received from the bomber community, it is unclear whether this policy ever really represented the Air Force's official stance. The USAF reversed course in a follow up report two years later. Furthermore, the 1999 Long Range Bombers white paper explicitly called for a "capability", not a "bomber" per se (e.g. some sort of standoff munition or otherwise some not-yet-conceived conceptual weapon). I'm not entirely satisfied with calling this "2037 bomber controversy" either, so I welcome any suggestions. Schierbecker (talk) 05:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd rather just go back to "2037 Bomber". BilCat (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

I literally 'laughed out loud' when I saw this. Cheers - wolf 23:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Yup. You can lead an user to a hidden note, but you can't make them read/follow it! BilCat (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Recent rollbacks

I noticed from the Department of Airports (Thailand) article that you recently reverted a whole bunch of edits by 2607:fea8:699b:b700:f912:9291:450c:da52, though most of them seemed unproblematic to me. Maybe you'd like to recheck the reversions? --Paul_012 (talk) 12:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)