| Revision as of 20:59, 27 June 2013 editSomeone not using his real name (talk | contribs)11,896 edits →ANI: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:10, 27 June 2013 edit undoBilCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers215,800 edits Undid revision 561875903 by Someone not using his real name (talk) - noted, and ignored - no reason to deal with single- issue IP trollsNext edit → | ||
| Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
| ::Fair enough. ] (]) 07:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC) | ::Fair enough. ] (]) 07:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == ANI == | |||
| ] | |||
| Hello. There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. The thread is ]. I'm notifying you because you have reverted the removal of white space, which according to an administrator is an "obnoxious" action you have done. ] (]) 20:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:10, 27 June 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages.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. |
 Archives |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Bell P-39 Airacobra
You know with all the controversy over the date of the first flight, didn't anyone notice that it is called the P-39? Seriously, the Aeroweanie has some compelling evidence, not the least of which is a Bell company photograph of the XP-39 that is dated October 1, 1938. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Coinicidence either way, as the numbers were assigned in order, but cute nonetheless! The NYT article certainly adds support for the 1939 date, and AW found that too. - BilCat (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- PS, did the mail come through? - BilCat (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. FWiW, we've had a very recent death in the family, so things are not quite working well right now, in both a physical and metaphysical sense. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Please accept my deepest condolences to you and your family. May God be with you all. - BilCat (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
With apologies
I see now that I was unreasonable, I concedeSocratesrazo (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)socratesrazo
- Apology accepted. - BilCat (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
You need to read WP:BRD
Your initial removal was reverted per WP:BRD as such the long standing version of the article must be the one that is left standing until a discussion is concluded. Secondly on the talk page of the MOS it is explained that leagues with teams in two countries are considered international competitions. There was a huge discussion on it. It is the whole reason that sentence exists. -DJSasso (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Three days is not a "long standing version of the article". You are edit warring, and you need to stop. Please discuss this on the NHL talk page, and gain a consensus THERE to keep the flags, including specific links to any claimed consensuses. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- No your initial removal. Prior to your initial removal it had been there years. -DJSasso (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Not on the NHL page. - BilCat (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Prior to your removal it had been there since Aug 28th, 2006. Other than the odd day or two where joj has tried to remove it and been reverted. -DJSasso (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Not on the NHL page. - BilCat (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know when my "initial removal" was, but it has been several years now, and for the majority of that time, there have been no flag icons in the infobox. - BilCat (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- A discussion has been opened on the NHL talk page. Please make any more comments there. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- I should note there is no ill will :) Its just a debate that I've seen go around and around far too many times. -DJSasso (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- I take your word for it, and that's why I added the AGF part in my comments on the other page. We can disagree without being disagreeable :) I do think that there are so many exeptions to the no-flags in Infoboxes rule that the guideline is becoming essentially worthless. I would like to see it clarified one way or another. I do believe that guidelines should follow usage, as opposed to policy, which necessarily dictaes usage. However, I also understand that there is a concern for accessibilty for the visually impaired readers, though I'm not sure I understand how this works out with the exceptions! - BilCat (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah its all a big mess really. I agree that the guidelines really should follow usage which in reality is that they are used more often than not. But I agree the accessibility concerns are an issue. Its mostly just the "distracting" arguments that I don't think much of cause that's just a personal opinion on taste or whatever. But I am good with whatever people decide as was done on the baseball page where an actual discussion was held to not use them on that page. -DJSasso (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- The use of flag icons in the non-English WPs appears to be very common. Many of the IPs adding the icons are from non-English speaking countries, and may not realize that their use is an issue on ENglish WP. They are used to using them on the WPs in their won languages, and so think they've just been ommitted here. That's often the case on aircraft airticles, where icons are often added to the aircraft infoboxes. - BilCat (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
American
Hi Bilcat, I changed American for US, because American is for both South American and North American. I know that Landsat is a US satelite nor American. I have been just more precise. Isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.163.240.121 (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- I know why you changed it, as I'm familiar with the Latin American view on the word "American" in Spanish. However, in English, "American" generally refers to the US, and shouldn't usually be changed. See American (word) for a detailed explanation of the uses in English. - BilCat (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Merging AAS/HC
Just to clarify real quick, per Help:Merging is the reason I was merging the pages without discussion (not vandalism). The merging help suggests just doing it if you are confident. Anywho, as I was nearing completion I began to think I had it backwards. I totally think they need to be merged, but I think amphibious assault ship need to be a subheading of some type in helicopter carrier's page. Also, if you check out the Navy's official website, helicopter carrier isn't listed. All the 'helicopter carriers' are listed as AAS. What do you think ? EzPz (talk) 06:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- I know it wasn't vandalism, which is why I mentioned BRD in some of the edit summaries. I'd rather they stay separate pages, as I view them as separate though closely-related types, but that's my opinion. I'd suggest added merge headers to both articles, with the discussion at HC, and we'll see where the consensus lies. - BilCat (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough. EzPz (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)