Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:32, 26 February 2010

BilCat is suffering from physical health issues. This may affect his ability to work on Misplaced Pages. Consequently, he may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated.

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. I generally do not bother to leave messages on IP talk pages, since many IPs are dynamic, and there's no way to know the difference on the first edits. The user will more than likely never even know they received a message, so it's just a waste of time better spent on actual editing. (This is one example of how not having mandatory registration does a great disservice to IP editors. Becasue of this, IP editors really ARE second-class users, made so by Jim Wales' own non-negotiable (thus dictatorial) policies.) The main exception is vandalism warnings, which are required before most admins will block or ban for vandalism. 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 permissable means. (See this policy.) This may include removing your messages from my talk page. If I've done so, please DO NOT re-add the same meassage, or follow-up with another - They will be removed again, mostly likely with a edit summary about your obnoxiousness in continually hounding me. If you then follow this up wth an ANI report, you're proving that you are a real jerk, and I won't respond there either, per WP:DNFT. I may, however, file my own ANI report against your harrasment, which you may define as "public scolding", but is in reality wiki-lynching. My key points to remember about editing Misplaced Pages Telepathy doesn't work over the internet. Please use edit summaries. Unexplained edits may be indistiguishable from vandalism. Please use edit summaries. Anoyone can claim to be anyone on WP. Use Reliable, verifiable published sources. "Assume Good Faith" applies to motive, not content. I correct mistakes or errors when I see them, regardless of who made them - AGF means I don't warn for vandalism unless it's quite obvious that it was vandalism. "Don't bite the Newbies" does't mean it's OK to "eat the oldies"! Don't treat me worse than you would treat vandal if, in your opinion, you think I may have bit a newbie. I'm not the bad guy here either, and I won't be treated like one. I will fight back. Wikipeida is supposed to be an encyclopeida, not a social club. While treating people with fairness and respect is important, it's not the only factor. Let's keep the "main thing" the "main thing", and protect the content as well as the contributors.

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.

Archives

Archive 1 - October 2006 - March 2007 Archive 2 - April - May 200 Archive 3 - 7 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 Archive 13

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.

Barnstar

		Wikiwings
		I award you these Wikiwings with Anti-vandalism barnstar device! The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar For thousands of hours, reverts, rollbacks, and cleanups on aisle 12, your thankless efforts are no longer unrecognized. We're just sorry that we only had enough money in the budget for this. --Born2flie (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much! I know how much time I spend on the task, but I wonder if anyone has ever figured out how much of a load vandalism and its removal puts on the WIki-servers? Perhaps this is a way to force the Big Jimbo to finally rethink his "non-negotiable" stance on open editing. - BilCat (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

V

A review from the magazine Slate noted that journalists and bloggers have seen V as an anti-Obama allegory. In response, executive producer Scott Peters maintained, "We are not looking to put any sort of agenda onto the table."

I thought that this was a very fair edit, considering your declared biases. Kudos.

Thanks. That's what neutrality is articles is supposed to mean. Sometimes it takes some wrangling to achieve, but that is one of the benifits of coopertive editing. - BilCat (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Not that it did any good! Other than the words in the script, the Visitors are still very much like those in the originals with Fascist tendencies. Perhaps those trying to contrive a controversy need to analyze why a fascist regime reminds them so much of Obama! ANyway, all this is based on one episode, whose script was written some time ago. The other scripts were still written eariler this year, and we have yet to see how thay play out. A police state is being set up in the story, and the parallels to the Bush Administration's anti-terrorism policies ware wide open. Will these same critics protest if such parallels can be drawn? Somehow, I greatly doubt it! Of couse, if the show depicts schoolchildren singing "Anna, Anna, Anna! Hmmm, hmmm, hmmm!" then I'll admit the show is clearly going after Obama! - BilCat (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm done there. It's sad when people don't even recognize there own biases, but are so intent at pointing oout the biases of others. For persoanl rasons, I don't have the time or energy to fight with page owners today. - BilCat (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yea, the head is not good at damaging walls. Hope you feel better soon, Bill. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Silhouettes

Evening BilCat. A little while ago you left me a note on silhouettes, suggesting they should not be thumbs, but sized at 300px. 300px is fine, but how to do this with a caption? I could use thumb with a forced 300px, or (I think) frame with 300px. Is there a preference or alternative? Certainly Image:xxxx.jpg|right|300px|Caption does not produce the caption. A caption is often vital with the silhouette in the specs section, for the latter may specify a Foo Mk.XX, whereas the silhouette is a Mk. XVI. Any thoughts?TSRL (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Break

Hope you are feeling better soon! - Ahunt (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam. I'm feeling a little better. However, I'm fed up with WP - too much like herding cats! - BilCat (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I can understand that sentiment! - Ahunt (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see you are back, even in a limited capacity! - Ahunt (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Let me know if you need help with something. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much! I'm feeling better, and the wiki-withdrawals were too high! I hd to delete my watchlist to enforce my break, but I lost my backup list. Would y'all mind sending me your raw watchlists (plain text)? Feel free to edit out anything you don't want me to see, but it would help me get caught back up on most of the WP:AIR pages I watch. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, here are most of my watchlist (hidden text):

Delete this when done, I guess. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I imagine you have a good watchlist built up by now. Let me know if you need help with articles or such. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm back over 6000 now, with about 2000 left to recover from my contributions list. Alss, I've just about cleaned out all your rock band articles from my list! ;) Thanks to both of you for the head-start. - BilCat (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

A330

I agree with the sentiment of not changing between versions of English in Airbus A330. Not sure whether this was a british/international thing I went to the BBC website and searched for an airline story. They use singular for an article about Emirates Airline - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7175527.stm. I'll leave up to you but think the BBC is a pretty good guide as to what's normal in british english.

removal of sourced addition to Sleeping while on duty

Why is it that you think that the recent addition to Sleeping while on duty should be removed? Please discuss it thoroughly before removing. Hellno2 (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's just WP:TRIVIA - I'm sure the meetings are recorded anyway, in case he missed an important discussion. See Talk:Sleeping while on duty#Trivia. - BilCat (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A380 origins

Not discussing this here, per my above notes. My edits are in line with the Template:Infobox Aircraft Type guidelines. See WP:MOSFLAG for the general guidelines against flags. If you have specific issues withthe infobox itself, then take them up on the template's talk page. For specifics on using it on the A380 page, it's talk page would be best. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sikorsky S-52

Bill, judging by the shape Sikorsky S-52 is in now, you may want to switch User:BilCat/Sandbox/Sikorsky S-52 to something else or delete. Just a thought. Take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I added info to the article using the sandbox. Think I got about all the facts out of those sources. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

F-22 Raptor image

Why can't I change the lead image on that article to a ACTUAL image? -Brainiack16

Cause you are making a mess, and because it is an actual image. - BilCat (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Point made

You have made your point, but you would have done better to have brought it up on my talk page. -- allen四names 03:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It would not have been printable! - BilCat (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox title lines

Noticed your recent changes on infobox title - Interestingly I have always assumed that model numbers meant anything that didnt have a name like Douglas DC-3 would be shown as Douglas DC-3 and not DC-3, but the Bloggs F-22 Foofighter would just be Foofighter. Obvious more that one meaning to model numbers! No big deal but if it is not clear perhaps we need to get a new consensus. Also need to add the bit about more users for current types being based on fleet size not national pride, refer Douglas DC-10 edits today! MilborneOne (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The previous discussions should make clear what was meant by "model number". The notes should be clarified to make it clear. I'm fine with new duscussions on the issue, as I'll raise allowing the manufactuer'sname in almost all cases. - BilCat (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I dont see why it cant be the same as the article title but sometimes the article title is a common name and a fuller designation could exist. I dont have a problem with manufacturers name in the infobox title. Its time to log off this side of the atlantic now so I might raise it at wp:aircaft if you havent done so when I come back on tomorrow. MilborneOne (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Electric Boat

Hello BilCat, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Electric Boat - a page you tagged - because: There's a (minimal) discussion on the talk page about moving to GD electric boat. This request can't be uncontroversial therefore. Gain consensus for the move first. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. GedUK  19:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I figured that, but wanted to try anyway. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

INS Viraat

Bill, just looking at Indian Navy and as allways pretty suspicious of any images from India/Pakistan being copy vios. Not an expert on ships but this looks like a copyvio File:Vizagstrategic.jpg, it is I believe INS Viraat but I cant find the original. Looks like an official Indian or US Navy shot. If you come across it then please let me know. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. If it's a USN photo, it's most likely PD, but that has to be proven, of course. - BilCat (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

F-16 Fighting Falcon

Thanks for tweaking the wording. Long words with specific meanings are great, as long as the meaning is actually appropriate. SeanWillard (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Bristol Fairchild Bolingbroke edits

The Bolingbroke Mk IV did mount a different turret with twin Browning machine guns in some of the production run, so the edits have to be somewhat adjusted. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC).

USAF Thunderbirds

BilCat,

I appreciate your diligence and willingness to make WP the most accurate source of information possible. At first I was irritated that the time I took to edit the USAF Thunderbirds page was completely wasted when you removed it. However, after doing a bit of research on Misplaced Pages itself, and checking out your avilable information, I can appreciate why you made the changes you did. However, I think the information I added to the page regarding the roster and schedule were valuable details that readers will find useful. I was hoping we could meet in the middle. I am open to suggestions about placement, external links, or other possibilities. I hope your health problems are on the mend and that I hear from you soon.

TBirdpaTbirdpa (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! I totally forgot about this! I'll try to get to this today or tomorrow. Thanks for the kind words, as i do appreciate anyone who takes the time to examine my record. - BilCat (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

MQ-9 Reaper

I provided source material (Wing Commander article) and as an MQ-9 operator I have first-hand knowledge of the subject. Such first-hand references trump secondary sources (i.e. the "aviation media"). It doesn't get much stronger than that and, in my humble opinion, a "consensus" isn't required.

I did post in the discussion for the MQ-9 page, but I'd really appreciate if you'd stop undoing my changes. I'm adding to the subject, not taking anything away from it.

I posted my 3 cents' worth on the talk page: essentially, they're synonyms. Basically, the USAF is pushing the status quo ante - attempting to return to the term it rejected as old-fashioned - because it's actually a more accurate term. However, the USAF successfully got the whole world to accept UAV. Whether it will have similar success with restoring general usage of RPV - or predominantly fails, as with UAS - remains to be seen. Anyhow, I have posted a suggestion for discussion. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark, and good point on the edit-warring - I'm too stubborn sometimes! Anyway, I sort of get the impression the return to RPV might be politically motivated - see MQ-9 Reaper#Controversy for complaints by a UN weenie about "so-called predator" (his words) killings. Just a hunch, but since the Obamunists took over, the military is doing some strange things! - BilCat (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen the USAF use the RPV terminology, but have not been looking either. I bet it is related to putting more attention on the controllers, to help with recruiting. They have been training some non-rated pilots to be controllers for the last year or two to help fill spots. Sorry, I checked the MQ-9 talk page after posting that, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette_alerts

The IP user has tried to inform you about Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#Continuous_Personal_Attacks_by_User:BilCat. MilborneOne (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I do believe now he is engaging in trollish behavior. I note the first 2 difss he gave I said vandalism, meaning the edits, not the user, and "apparent vandalism", showing good faith. Does he emtnion that, or my mention of his incivility? Of course not! Sorry to have involved you in this. - BilCat (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem not sure raising it two forums helps sort out the issues. MilborneOne (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully, a bot closed this "discussion" a couple of days ago. The wiki-troll seems to have moved on also. By the way, I've seen examples of botsadding line spaces to srticles lately, leaving two spaces between sections. So there is a way to do this without breaking the style sheets! - BilCat (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

El Salvador Language

Sorry for for stating, and writting down that English is one of El Salvadors official languages, I should of checked if there was a reference first. Sorry about that. House1090 (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It does seem to be require in schools from at least the middle school level on, but I couldn't fine anything eles on an official status. That doesn't mean it is not an official language, but it does not appear to be primary language. - BilCat (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yea I am looking for information on that. English is required from I believe 3 grade or something, but yea like you said, its not a primary language wide spoken like spanish. House1090 (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Engines page re-shuffle

Hi Bill, are you happy with my suggestion on task force organisation at WT:AETF? Just want to make sure that everyone is happy before I do anything, there is nothing drastic involved! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Freighters at airport

Bill, I've been seeing a An-124 at the Huntsville airport lately. It was parked near the intermodal freight building there today. There's been a 747-400 there at different times also. I can't readily get a good view at either due to surrounding buildings though. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds cool! Seriously. I just read tht piece on the "cut-and-shut" Chinook in Afghanistan. I kept expecting to hear the man's son had died in the crash of the helicopter, as much fuss as he was making. He seems to be reacting soley to the buzz words "cut-and-shut", and basing his reactionos on his own definition of what that term means, not reality. I've never heard the term myself, so I don't know what connotations that might have to the Brits. - BilCat (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I never did get a solid reason for complaining about that rebuilt Chinook. Seemed like a good recycling/money saving effort. The An-124 has a different look with the high wing with them sloping down slightly toward the tips. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

<lurk off>I suspect the Chinook issue is just a matter of language, cut and shut is a dodgy practice in the motor trade when crashed cars are repaired by welding two together, it is not really relevant to aircraft but to a father who has lost his son one can only imagine the need to find causes and blame for their sad loss. Some images of the accident to ZA704 are at http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/chinook/aft_pylon_removal.html so it was badly damaged but far from a complete wreck.<lurk on> MilborneOne (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. We call tha "clipping" on our side of the pond. My dad is in the used auto parts buisness, and hes has had a number of wrecked cars rebuilt, and then the family drives them. Our stste requires inspection on all rebuilt cars, and they are fairly strict - all the welds are inspected, etc. If done right, it can save thousands of dollars. I've driven cars with front ends, rear ends, and sides taken from other cars, with no difficulties. If my dad and the people he contracts to do much of the body work can do a good job, I'm sure the RAF can too! The US military has does the same thing, most notably the A-12/SR-71 and FrankenProwler/-Hornets that Jeff has mentioned. It's really not that uncommon, and it does save money. That's something the UK MOZD is quite short of right now, and its said to see that a proven method of reclamation might be stopped because of a grief-stricken parent. - BilCat (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, saw a An-124 and a 747-400 there at the same time right before Christmas. There was a cylindrical object in front of the 124 with its nose door up then. I did not know rebuilding cars like that was done much and had not heard of either clipping or cut & shut. Thanks. I plan to go to Ft Rucker and the Army Aviation Museum this weekend and hope to get some good pics. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not realize how large the CH-37 Mojave is. Except for some rare early aircraft, most on display were common Army types, like a CH-47A, UH-1s, AH-1s, UH-60A and OH-58. Got some pics of the CH-47-derivative Model 347 on the museum's grounds. Did not see an AH-56 or RAH-66 there though. :( -Fnlayson (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the 347 would be good to have - is that the one with the wings? I think the XCH-62 is no longer on display there - IIRC, it deteriorated so badly they had to scrap it, which is sad. I also hope the museum will do what the USAF museum has done,a nd that is to have every aircraft exibited online with photos. Maybe someday! Still, I'd love to make the trip down there someday, perhaps if my health improves. - BilCat (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the 347 is a CH-47A with wings and 4-blade rotors. Seems the rotors could have been applied to later CH-47 variants. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I look forward to seeing the pics. - BilCat (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sikorsky S-53

Just created Sikorsky S-53 but it is really the Sikorsky XHJS-1 in mil terms so should probably be moved to the mil designation. Very little info on it so any help appreciated. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look, and check my sources later today. - BilCat (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A320

Hi BilCat, I have problems to understand your argumentation here. The image you prefer was taken with a strange angle (the plane would have to be lower to make it look better), furthermore it shows only one member of the A320 family. Isn't it better to have as many members as possible on the first picture of the article? I don't know any picture showing all four members, but this one shows at least three of them. Furthermore, the aircraft shown in the image are anything but too small, I am sorry to have to say that. I am looking forward to your clarification, Anesinan (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

They still aren't in flight, which is preferred for the Lead image. I have no problem with the image being elsewhere in the article, but I couldn't find a place for it at the time. - BilCat (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You can look for further discussions on my talk page. Thanks, Anesinan (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I see you've bailed on the discussion, and on WP. We never used the terms law or policy for a reason, but stsaed that a flying image is "preferred". If the consensus is to keep a non-flying image, it can be used in the Lead. However, 3 users have disagreeded with you to this point, mening the consensus now is against changing the image to a non-flying one. None of the 3 have stated that the current image can't be replaced by another in-flight image, though I do like the current one. - BilCat (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The user's airport image is a good image for showing 3 of the main variants, but is not fitting for Infobox. Looks like the user could not have his/her way and is taking the ball and going home. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

CFM56 A-Class Review

Hey Bill-- If you have a few minutes sometime I would appreciate it if you could take a look at the CFM56 A-Class review and leave some comments. There aren't too many engine people around, and I would appreciate a knowledgeable opinion. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Turn on the autopilot, Luke

A question about this: isn't the parent org in question singular? (I'm not deeply concerned either way; I'm just not sure enough about this to rv it.) TREKphiler 05:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In this case, the parent organization was the US Army. The article is at United States Army Air Forces - it may give enough background to explain it, but I'm not sure. Thanks for sking first! - BilCat (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thx. (As you can tell, I wasn't hanging on a reply. ;p) I know you well enough to know you wouldn't do it capriciously (somebody else, I probably wouldn't bother asking), & it wasn't a bug for me. Hope you're having a good year! TREKphiler

Ears?

Something interesting just came up, wanna come over and chat? --Dave 05:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Joke of the day

Bill, please take a look at this and then tell me the joke, if you catch it. --Dave 08:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the paragraph with the use of 'developed'. Using 'refilling' there seems strange as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. It looks just like a Il-76/78 (note the tail gunner's station), which is what India currently uses for Inflight refueling. Perhaps it's a re-touched image of an Indian plane. Anyway, change the location/country to India, and the piece reads just like it might in the Times of India - the "mainstream" press in both countries can be very patriotic, and vauge when it comes to military info. Mainstream American and British press treat it as a sin to be patriotic (while also being against sin as a concept!)), and often read like they were published by the old Soviet Union! It's all quite strange. How odd it must be to have media that actually like the country they live in! - BilCat (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• I do note that the spelled the plural of "aircraft" without an "S", which is rare for Pakistani media. Even the PAF website often uses "aircrafts"! - BilCat (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry CHRISTmas

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

Thanks much, and Merry Cristmas to y'all! - BilCat (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Dab redlinks

Do you have expert knowledge in taxonomy? If not, please do not mess with issues you do not understand sufficiently, and restore those redlinks. We need them to prevent non-disambiguous disambiguation names such as Erica (genus), which is what novice users will create en masse if we do not tell them otherwise. The general MoS has no bearing on this issue; the codes of biological nomenclature are mandatory for enyclopedic works such as Misplaced Pages and homonymy cannot be tolerated, just as some statute in the general MoS is to be disregarded if it breaks the law in some particular case.

Alternatively, please read the codes of nomenclature (4 books of some size each) so that you understand the issue and can help to clean up the thousands of articles that have wrong names already, and patrol those tens of thousands of articles that will get wrong names eventually.

If you want to do that, you're welcome to remove the redlinks; otherwise restore them please. Thanks. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've read the WP MOS, and that's all I'm required to read. WP is self governing, and ousidie of copyright laws, nothing else applies. Sorry. - BilCat (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As to your motive of "what novice users will create en masse if we do not tell them otherwise": How does creating a redlink on a totally unrelated article prevent the creation of one at as different title? In the Aircraft Project, we regularly find created articles that are redundant to existing articles; sometimes they only differ in punctuation or spacing in the designation. The only way to stop an article being created at a different title is to salt it to prevent it's creation. However, a creative novice user will often just create it at as similar, though more incorrect, title! What I'd recommend is watchlisting the likely titles, and then moving them to the correct titles when they are created. That's really about all that you can reasonably do on an encyclopedia that anyone can edit - and they often do! - BilCat (talk) 01:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles of Confederation

Why would you undo my change? It was the first time in the article that the United States Constitution was mentioned, and there's no useful reason to abbreviate it.—Cleared as filed. 01:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Because "United States" is already mentioned 5 times - that seemed like enough. - BilCat (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 331 and location of the accident on oceanfront

Hi there, you reversed my correction that the aircraft came to rest oceanside, not harborside. The approach was from over the harbour, not the ocean, on RWY 12. Kindly take a gander at Google Earth or Wikimapia or just click on the coordinates link and explode the view. You will see that the RWY ends oceanside on the ILS approach, not on Kingston Harbour. The airport is peculiarly located on a strip of land that separates the Harbour from the ocean. --Mareklug 21:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever been to the airport? The airplane would have had to cross a road to stop near the "ocean". I've added sources to the article from the airport's website that the airport is "adjacent to the harbour. I'll look at the maps anyway. - BilCat (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Butterflies

Thanks - I've left a little note on his talkpage. We'll see how it goes from there. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft Carrier

On the page Aircraft Carrier, you reverted my edits because "LHAs and LHDs are NOT considered aircraft carries." On the same page where it lists types of aircraft carriers one of the types listed is "Amphibious assault ship." Also, why should the Japanese helicopter destroyers be listed but not USN Amphibious assault ships? The USN Wasp class amphibious assault ship carries ten-twenty more aircraft than the Japanese helicopter destroyers do, so they obviously have enough aircraft to be counted as an aircraft carrier. It seems very illogical to not include the Wasp/Tarawa class Amphibious assault ships in the list of aircraft carriers— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.201.35 (talk)

By the US Navy. - BilCat (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Langley Flying School‎

I see you have been trying to improve this article, but it is currently locked until 03 Jan 10. I left some ideas at Talk:Langley Flying School‎ and will help out fixing it up when it becomes unlocked. - Ahunt (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As it seems that I got you into this particular little mess (for which I apologise), I will also spend some time on fixing it, although I now think I should have gone with my initial instinct and just nominated it for deletion. YSSYguy (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I like messes! - BilCat (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Our Edit Wars

The usual pattern is that I'll make some outrageous edit and you'll revert it and then I'll pull out some strange ref to back it up and then you'll edit my edit to miss the entire point. So it's standard wiki-practice AFAIK.  ;-) Hcobb (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Because your point is usually irrelevant to a general encyclopedia article. Too much news, not enough relevant info. Have you considered Wikinews? I've never edited on it, but you might find it useful. Seriously. If you like breaking news and quotes, it might be worth checking out. - BilCat (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

NORAD

Bill, Thank you for watching and cleaning up the extraneous stuff in the NORAD article. I take a few days off to visit relatives in the Nebraska panhandle and two blizzards hit!... the snow blizzard that hit the farm on Christmas Day and the 'blizard' on NORAD. Hope you had a good Christmas.I'm sure there will be much more next year. Have a Happy New Year!... Lance. LanceBarber (talk) 06:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I used to watch that aticle awhile back and just gave up. After seeing the orginal section in the history that the POVers had removed/changed, They actually took out legitimate, worthwhile, and cited information to put in their crap! I decided to tackle the article again, as this sort of warped POV should not be allowed to stand. If they show up again, I'm going hunting for some admins I trust to back up WP policies. (And I'll try not to edit war first - I'm learning my lesson, Nick-D!) It's good to see you active again, at least on articles we have in common. Have a Happy New Year too. - BilCat (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Question about the correct designations for older Lockheed aircraft.

The titles of the three articles Lockheed L-10 Electra, Lockheed L-12 Electra Junior, and Lockheed L-14 Super Electra all use the form L-n for the designation, with the Model n form (e.g. Lockheed Model 10 Electra) as a redirect. You made these changes about two and a half years ago.

However, while reading various contemporary documents concerning these aircraft, such as type certificate data sheets, accident reports, and old articles in Flight, I have always seen them designated as either Model n, Type-name n, or sometimes just Lockheed n (e.g. Model 12A, Electra Junior 12A, or Lockheed 12A). I have never seen the L-n form in such documents; it seems to be a newer practice, done for consistency with later Lockheeds like the L-188 Electra. (For example, the L-n form doesn't show up in Flight until 1958.) Lockheed's own website uses the Model n form when discussing these older planes.

What was your basis for choosing L-n as the correct form? Would you consider the possibility of changing it to Model n?

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's the consensus of WP:AIR to use the L- format. I'll try to find the discussion, and send you a link to it. - BilCat (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'd appreciate it. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I did a little digging myself, and found this. Was that the discussion you had in mind? --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I know you've been busy lately; did you miss my last question above? --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've decided to bring the issue up on WT:AIR for wider discussion. Hope you don't mind. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry! I completely forgot, and then your follow-ups got lost in a storm of comments the past few days. You should get at good answer at WT:AIR. I didn't ignore you on purpose. - BilCat (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem! You seemed to have a lot on your plate already. :) --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Question about your edits of DHC-2 entry

"Removed non-notable additions added by Keepitreal74 - uh, exactly" - I'm not sure what you mean by "uh, exactly" and why would you remove the reference to the latest accident up north? thank you for all your contributions and I hope you feel better soon. Keepitreal74 (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what I meant either - it looks like a reference to something that you might have said, but I can't find it. I might have got mixed up with another revert I made at the time. Anyway, per the WP:AIRCRASH guidelines, the accident is not notable. Small aircraft crashes are numerous, and listing all of them would be counter-productive in an encyclopedia. Also, being "latest accident" is not a qualifier, no matter where it happened. - BilCat (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand completely, thanks.Keepitreal74 (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Langley Flying School

An article that you have been involved in editing, Langley Flying School, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Langley Flying School. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ahunt (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Canberra class Landing Helicopter Dock

Your rollback to Canberra class Landing Helicopter Dock returns an un-cited and apparently incorrect aviation information which had been been updated from the Spanish BPE Spanish ship Juan Carlos I (L61) page. I support your anti-vandalism work but if you see the Canberra talk page I had a request for help in clarification of that edit, I would like to return my edit and let those closer to the page clean up the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.246.212 (talk)

My revert was not a "rollback" for vandalism. Take this to the article's talk page. - BilCat (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce R

I've just put some thoughts down in the discussion page on "High Speed Alloys". Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Air Defence Command?

Thanks for your warning there to the other editor, it was much appreciated! - Ahunt (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm not actually sure he knew the answer or not, but either way, that was too much! I just hope he listens. - BilCat (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope so to - writing good articles is hard enough work, without sarcasm and other hostile silliness thrown in! - Ahunt (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I use a lot of sarcasm myself, but calling you answer "condecension" is too much even for me. You gave a straight-forward answer in good faith, and that shouldn't be attacked. As I do sometimes remind people (sarcasticlly), mind-reading doesn't work over the internet! - BilCat (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year - 2009

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your nomination in the 2009 "Military Historian of the Year" awards, I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Doolittle

I removed "saving a previously injured ankle from breaking" from Jimmy Doolittle because there is no reference citation on the page to support the statement and, while the statement may be correct that his ankle was not broken in the crash, it does not say in the text how he did it. Plus, how do you verify a statement like that? A contributor could have written that Doolittle 'saved a previously unbroken arm from breaking'. Indeed, you could say Doolittle saved every bone from breaking except for those that were broken in the crash - a true but meaningless statement. That was my thinking behind removing the text. I hope this makes my intent clear. I was not trying to vandalize the site, just improve it.

You need to try to use edit summaries when you edit, so people will know what you are doing. You had made some odd changes to the dates, and that is why I had reverted you. I'll try to add your changes about the leg back in later. - BilCat (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Bill, I've just blocked you for 3 hours for breaching the 3RR in the Viceroy article. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock}} below. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention to the block amounts, but I was over 3RR. Anyway, I've moved on. This dude want to own the article, so let him. Frankly, I can't understand his refusal to add inline citations - that's not optional when requested. there was a 9-month old {{refimprove}} on the articel, so that's not a new issue there either. It's very strange to me. - BilCat (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been three hours, and it won't let me edit. Was the block changed back to 12 hours? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bill, your account is showing as being unblocked (I just tried to manually unblock you, but it said this wasn't possible as you weren't blocked). Could you please try editing again? Nick-D (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Still not able to edit. It states it's an autoblock for BilCat. - BilCat (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll post on WP:AN now, and see if anyone there can fix this up. Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The post is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Block not expiring when it should - urgent. Nick-D (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This should now have been fixed by User:Spartaz. Nick-D (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's working now, thanks again. I guess God wanted me to have a 4-hour block! - BilCat (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

...or this admin didn't know how to shorten blocks properly. Sorry for the mix-up. Nick-D (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) If God can use Balaam's donkey, He can use anyone! :) Btw, you might ought to have someone check the other guy's block also, just in case that same admin messed up his block too. ;)

Yes, I messed that one up as well, but have manually unblocked them now :0 Nick-D (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Your removal of "uncited addition" from Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_carrier#Design

The addition was cited, in that it included a sole and obvious Wiki link to another ship class for which the references to class characteristics are not at all in doubt. If you wish to translate the source detail over, you may; I'd like to avoid having a footnote for every sentence when a link to something of verifiable detail is already included. I am undoing your removal because I feel it is clear that the provided information is both evidently plain in the manner it is displayed, and it is useful to the reader in terms of measuring the scope of naval spending between nations. —166.137.132.54 (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The aircraft complement is not the same, as the Wasps can carry as many Harriers as the Invincibles, plus additional helicopters. Also, you aren't just referencing figures, but making an analysis based on the sourced figures, which is called synthesis. In addition, the article is about the QEs, not the Invincibles, so the whole comment is out of place there. Obviously I couldn't fit all that in the edit summary. Rather than reverting something without completely understanding the reasons for it, it's better to ask first. I won't remove it again right now, but if you don't contiue to discuss this in good faith, I will revert it again later. - BilCat (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, a cited entry requires a secondary source; other Misplaced Pages articles are not reliable. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)