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 01:15, 11 February 2022 editClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,381,664 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:BilCat/archive24. (BOT)← Previous edit Revision as of 01:42, 11 February 2022 edit undoMichael F 1967 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,548 edits Undid, due to incorrect reason given for reversion since I listened and responded with a reasonable query to a reasonable point. It's personally insulting to reject my edit on the grounds of not listening. Remove my edit by all means, but please give a correct reason. Undid revision 1071127725 by BilCat (talk)Tags: Undo RevertedNext edit →
Line 131: Line 131:


:Ok, thanks. ] (]) 23:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC) :Ok, thanks. ] (]) 23:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

== Concorde specifications. ==

The reason you gave for your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Concorde&oldid=1046324512 was: "Removed unsourced, non-notable sensors list - this is primarily for major avionics such as radars that have their own articles." Unfortunately, you seemed not to understand the reasons I gave for reverting that edit, and subsequently reverted my reversion (I'm trying to avoid a silly edit war over this - we are both obviously trying to do the right thing, but with different viewpoints) in your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Concorde&oldid=1071102595.

So: here is my point of view on the matter. I'm hoping for your point of view in response.

I had two reasons for reverting your edit, those two reasons being that your two reasons were both incorrect. Firstly, the data is sourced as I explained, by the references cited at the start of the Specifications section in line with convention. Secondly, a lot of Concorde's avionics described in those sources was unique or unusual when Concorde entered into service; thus, the referenced sources define much of the avionics as notable, regardless of your opinion.

Given that both of your stated reasons are wrong, why delete the section? (Oh, the ] isn't notable - that can go, if you'd care to vet the list item by item rather than remove it wholesale. But not the inertial navigation system or the fly by wire).

It seems to me that if you think that particular items of avionics listed are not notable, then the sensible thing to do is provide some justification for removing each particular item from the list rather than removing the entire section.

I'm not going to suggest that it's verging on vandalism to delete the entire Avionics section, but: the data listed is very obviously sourced and quite a lot of the listed avionics is unquestionably notable as I pointed out. So you really do need to find some other - not incorrect - reasons if you want to remove all the sourced data in question.

To give one example of the avionics listed being notable: no other airliner ever has had digital electronic control over the engine intake geometry - variable engine intake geometry is only useful if you're going supersonic, so out of all airliners so far, only Concorde and the Tu-144 have ever had any use for such avionics, and the USSR didn't have such tech available at the time.

Do please respond so we can resolve this issue amicably.

] (]) 00:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

:Where is the specific article on the specific digital electronic control over the engine intake geometry unit used in the Concorde? There isn't one. Where is the specific article on the actual Fly by wire flight controls unit used in the Concorde? There isn't one. Where is the specific article on the actual Analogue electronic engine controls unit used in the Concorde? There isn't one. Where is the specific article on the actual Dual ] instruments unit used in the Concorde? There isn't one. Where is the specific article on the actual Dual ] instruments unit used in the Concorde? There isn't one. Where is the specific article on the actual Dual ] instruments unit used in the Concorde? There isn't one. Where is the specific article on the actual Dual ] instruments unit used in the Concorde? There isn't one. Where is the specific article on the actual Dual ] instruments unit used in the Concorde? There isn't one. Where is the specific article on the actual Dual ]s unit used in the Concorde? There isn't one. Where is the specific article on the actual ] E390/564 weather radar unit used in the Concorde? There isn't one. Do you get the point yet? Also, such issues are better discussed on the article's talk page so that other users can participate. ] (]) 00:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

:: Hello. I'm trying to be civilised and polite but I'm not sure how best to do it here, so I'll get to my main point:

:: Where is the requirement for there to be a specific Misplaced Pages article on each item of avionics listed for it to be included in the list in question?

:: In this case, I can see no benefit in discussing the matter anywhere but here, in large part because one of your repeated points was that the data wasn't sourced when it clearly is. Let's keep it simple: here we have two editors, both trying to do the right thing, with two different viewpoints. You're reasonable and I like to think I am too. I'm sure we can come to some sort of agreement.

:: ] (]) 00:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

:: P.S. My timezone is GMT, so it will be quite a lot of hours before I response. ] (]) 00:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:42, 11 February 2022

CONSIDERING RETIREMENT BilCat is strongly considering retirement, although nothing is set in stone...
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 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.
  • Experienced editors are welcome to reply to posts here if they do so nicely.
  • 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.

The WikiEagle - February 2022

The WikiEagle
The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter
Volume I — Issue 2
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle
Columns

Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

FYI

I'm not sure how far you looked at Special:Contribs/70.161.8.90 and Special:PageHistory/User talk:70.161.8.90, but they're on a very static IP and have already been taken to ANI once (fell off the board without action). After my warning to them for transphobic NOTFORUM comments at Talk:Amy Schneider and their response thereto, and their response to you just now for the Washington Commanders thing, a second round at ANI might be due if they keep this up. -- Tamzin (she/they) 03:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Keep an eye on them, and if they cross my path again, I'll let you know. BilCat (talk) 04:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

CAP

Is that better? -Toast (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Revered edit on SH-60 Seahawk page

Hey, you reversed an edit I made about the tail pylon folding; you said that’s not the only thing that can be folded, but the “tail pylon fold” feature is the correct characterization for that design.

Here’s a reference: https://ibb.co/M268WgR Devinpmorris (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

What is that from? A photo of text isn't submissible as a source. BilCat (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

raytheon and military-industrial complex

Military-industrial complex "not relevant" in conjunction with Raytheon? Sure?? See current ref. in the article and have a look at: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=raytheon+military+industrial+complex . What do you think? -- Kku (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry bilcat it won't happen again 2605:8D80:4A0:D2C4:30C8:5B46:7C22:3F21 (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Concorde specifications.

The reason you gave for your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Concorde&oldid=1046324512 was: "Removed unsourced, non-notable sensors list - this is primarily for major avionics such as radars that have their own articles." Unfortunately, you seemed not to understand the reasons I gave for reverting that edit, and subsequently reverted my reversion (I'm trying to avoid a silly edit war over this - we are both obviously trying to do the right thing, but with different viewpoints) in your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Concorde&oldid=1071102595.

So: here is my point of view on the matter. I'm hoping for your point of view in response.

I had two reasons for reverting your edit, those two reasons being that your two reasons were both incorrect. Firstly, the data is sourced as I explained, by the references cited at the start of the Specifications section in line with convention. Secondly, a lot of Concorde's avionics described in those sources was unique or unusual when Concorde entered into service; thus, the referenced sources define much of the avionics as notable, regardless of your opinion.

Given that both of your stated reasons are wrong, why delete the section? (Oh, the VOR isn't notable - that can go, if you'd care to vet the list item by item rather than remove it wholesale. But not the inertial navigation system or the fly by wire).

It seems to me that if you think that particular items of avionics listed are not notable, then the sensible thing to do is provide some justification for removing each particular item from the list rather than removing the entire section.

I'm not going to suggest that it's verging on vandalism to delete the entire Avionics section, but: the data listed is very obviously sourced and quite a lot of the listed avionics is unquestionably notable as I pointed out. So you really do need to find some other - not incorrect - reasons if you want to remove all the sourced data in question.

To give one example of the avionics listed being notable: no other airliner ever has had digital electronic control over the engine intake geometry - variable engine intake geometry is only useful if you're going supersonic, so out of all airliners so far, only Concorde and the Tu-144 have ever had any use for such avionics, and the USSR didn't have such tech available at the time.

Do please respond so we can resolve this issue amicably.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Where is the specific article on the specific digital electronic control over the engine intake geometry unit used in the Concorde? There isn't one. Where is the specific article on the actual Fly by wire flight controls unit used in the Concorde? There isn't one. Where is the specific article on the actual Analogue electronic engine controls unit used in the Concorde? There isn't one. Where is the specific article on the actual Dual VHF omnidirectional range instruments unit used in the Concorde? There isn't one. Where is the specific article on the actual Dual automatic direction finder instruments unit used in the Concorde? There isn't one. Where is the specific article on the actual Dual automatic direction finder instruments unit used in the Concorde? There isn't one. Where is the specific article on the actual Dual distance measuring equipment instruments unit used in the Concorde? There isn't one. Where is the specific article on the actual Dual distance measuring equipment instruments unit used in the Concorde? There isn't one. Where is the specific article on the actual Dual instrument landing systems unit used in the Concorde? There isn't one. Where is the specific article on the actual Ekco E390/564 weather radar unit used in the Concorde? There isn't one. Do you get the point yet? Also, such issues are better discussed on the article's talk page so that other users can participate. BilCat (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I'm trying to be civilised and polite but I'm not sure how best to do it here, so I'll get to my main point:
Where is the requirement for there to be a specific Misplaced Pages article on each item of avionics listed for it to be included in the list in question?
In this case, I can see no benefit in discussing the matter anywhere but here, in large part because one of your repeated points was that the data wasn't sourced when it clearly is. Let's keep it simple: here we have two editors, both trying to do the right thing, with two different viewpoints. You're reasonable and I like to think I am too. I'm sure we can come to some sort of agreement.
Michael F 1967 (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
P.S. My timezone is GMT, so it will be quite a lot of hours before I response. Michael F 1967 (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)