Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:33, 23 March 2016

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.

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. If I leave a message for you: Please respond on your talk page. I'll probably add it to my watchlist, but if I miss something, feel free to leave a talkback. If you leave a message for me: I will most likely respond here. Either add this page to your watchlist or ask me to notify you of a response on your talk page. If I remove your message from my talk page: Please DO NOT re-add the same meassage, or follow-up with another message - They will be removed again. This is a sign that I am disengaging from contact with you and/or the subject matter. The only exception to further posting is for notices that WP requires be given to inform a user of an ANI or similar discussions. Please limit this talk page to discussions not related to any particular article, those covering a wide range of articles/topics, or personal comments. If you wish to keep a matter confidential, such as discussing 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. Note: Sometimes my crappy ISP may lose my email before I've read it. That's the future of Awful. If you want me to take your opinions and edits seriously, you ought to register. and use that account for all your edits to English WP. Otherwise one never knows who really made the edits, especially in the case of dynamic IP addresses. Also, having a unique body of work in your edit history is helpful to other editors in many positive ways, and shows that you are genuinely committed to WP. 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. This may include removing your messages from my talk page. If I mistakenly called your edits as vandalism when I reverted them, it was probably because you did not leave an edit summary. (This also applies to Rollbacks.) Please realize that, in many cases, unexplained edits are indistinguishable from vandalism! If you're here to troll, harass, or vandalize, I might not be able to stop you, but you will be reverted...and beware the giant dice.

Archives

Archive 1 - October 2006 - March 2007 Archive 2 - April - May 2007 Archive 3 - May - June 2007 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 - July 2009 - Dec 2009 Archive 14 - Jan 2010 - June 2010 Archive 15 - June 2010 - August 2013 Archive 16 - December 2010 - August 2013 Archive 17 - August 2013 -

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Template:NoBracketBot

Just a question...

Hey Bill, I see you do a lot of work fixing vandalism (good work, btw), but I was just wondering why you don't template the vandals? Cheers - WOLFchild 20:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I do warn them many times, in fact I just did one here about 10 minutes before you posted. It just depends on the vandalism, how many vandalism edits the user has made, etc. I have to warn manually, so sometimes it isn't worth the physical effort. - BilCat (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You don't have Twinkle? - WOLFchild 20:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

No. I used IE 8 for years, and Twinkle doesn't work with it. I now mostly edit from 2 Fire tablets, but I haven't checked to see if it works or not. I used to have a script for warning vandalism, but it quit working a while back after WP made some changes to the wiki-software. - BilCat (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Maybe you can copy some templates onto a notepad, then use them when you need them. Anyway... Happy Editing. - WOLFchild 20:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I just tried Twinkle from my tablet, and the interface does work. I'll try it out over the next few days and see how it does. Thanks for the suggestion. - ~~

Cool Beans! Look out vandals... - WOLFchild 20:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Is there a way that the Rollback-Vandal option can label its reverts as Reverting Vandalism in the edit summaries? Or do I have to use the Rollback option to add text? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. I'm basically just a straight Twinkle user. I have played around in Preferences a bit to add some custom templates, but that's about it. You could check there, or the Twinkle help page, or failing that, ask someone who knows more about it. Sorry. - WOLFchild 04:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I was just making sure I hadn't missed an easy setting. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

You might wish to take a look at this. BMK (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I already looked at it, but I usually stay out of ANI. You're actions certainly aren't vandalism, and the community should recognize that. I'll try to keep an eye on it though. - BilCat (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

SORRY BilCat

BilCat, buddy I wuz just foolin with u. Sorry bout DAT. #uhavswag. BreatherOfTruth (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

First flight on Amca

Hello I am the same person from the reference section of amca talk page. First flights section in the info box recently had been effected by edit war as the user Aryan Indian tried to put entry date around 2030 that looks like uncronstive, he is trying helping editing any helping Amca article but need guidance and look like he is not fimilar with the wikipedia rule. It's better to leave trust flight reference out if info box, but should be in other part of article with reference as it helps to understand programme development, But it be kept out of infobox as it look like speculative as you has already mentioned.

1.39.10.42 (talk) 03:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw your comment on the article's talk page. And wouldn't it be easier to use a registered name? That way you wouldn't have to keep saying "I am the same person from the reference section of amca talk page." - BilCat (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI

You might want to read this as you were involved and now mentioned. Cheers - WOLFchild 05:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Aeritalia

Ciao, please if you have time to look this:

• Aeritalia as Section of FIAT
• Aeritalia birth
• http://www.finmeccanica.com/en/one-company/storia1_history1/anni-1961-1972-il-boom-economico-e-l-aeritalia

I think indicate Fiat Aviazione is not correct because it was a branch of Fiat active only for motors. Thank you--Fernando.tassone (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Robert Conrad page

Not sure if this is where I need to leave this or not, but I had attempted to change the last name and heritage of Mr. Conrad's father twice and it was changed back both times. I do not have a way to cite this, as Mr. Conrad is a personal friend and had asked me to help him get this changed. Thanks Ekvannoy (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to raise the issue on the article's talk page so that other users can contribute. We can't just take your word that this at Mr. Conrad's request, as anyone can claim to be anyone. But we can discuss options available on the talk page. - BilCat (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

After reviewing the sources, I've gone ahead and removed all the information on Mr. Conrad's ancestry, as the sources are questionable to begin with, and this is per WP's policies on biographies of living people. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

ISIS

why isn't isis count as MiG-21 operator? Naytz (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Because the "witnesses" don't even know for certain what type of planes they are, per your source. - BilCat (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Reply to your message of today, Feb. 25, 2016

HLJaeger (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)BilCat,

My name is Harry Jaeger. I am a retiree of Westinghouse and have much good information to edit the article on Wesinghouse Combustion Turbine Systems Division. I have been meaning to improve that article for a long time.

The information that I added today is accurate. There were several names of CTSD before it was called that starting in 1978.

Also, the information on Westinghouse jet engine development and experience comes from several references, including:

ASME Paper 94-GT- 688 Scalzo, Bannister, Howard, and DeCorso “Evolution of Heavy-Duty Power Generation and Industrial Gas Turbines in the United States” delivered at the ASME International Gas Turbine Conference, The Hague, June, 1994.

US Navy Aircraft History --- Westinghouse: From Hero to Zero. A blog posted by Tommy Thomason, March 21, 2011, http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/03/from-hero-to-zero.html

Westinghouse J40 - Misplaced Pages - https://en.wikipedia.org/Westinghouse_J40

Please restore the edit that I contributed today and add those references if you need to.

Also, if you want to see the full story that I plan to use for editing of that article see the document at this link:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/n0o9z3qgfedvb7n/Early%20history%20of%20Westinghouse%20Gas%20Turbines%202-2016.pdf?dl=0

Regards,

Harry Jaeger

I'm not certain that any of those sources you listed meet Reliable Sources and Verifiability policies, though Tommy Thomason's blog might, as he is a published author. I will ask for assistance in judging which sources are useable though. Also, be wary of using the J40 article as a source, as you have to verify that such information is found in its cited sources, and the sources have to be cited directly.

Second, we already have an article on the Westinghouse Aviation Gas Turbine Division, and that's probably best place for your additions at this point. It certainly has room for expansion! However, I don't what relationship AGT and CTSD have to each other, but you may know.

Finally, my suggestion is that you work on your additions in a separate place, usually a sub-page under your username, and cite your sources there. I can help you with getting the sources cited correctly, and even setting up a sub-page, if you need help with any of that. There is also a Misplaced Pages project, WP:AIRCRAFT (WPAIR for short), where other users who are interested in aircraft topics hang out, and some of them will probably willing to assist also. As Misplaced Pages is a collaborative endeavor, having users with similar interests but different writing and editing skills helps us to achive better aviation articles. Some, like me, are just aviation fans, but others are pilots, engineers, technicians, etc. both civil and/or military.

Thanks, and I look forward to seeing more of what you can contribute. - BilCat (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Remarkable

The purpose of this comment is purely personal.

I regard your efficiency as truly remarkable.

Your response, by the way, to the immediately preceding submission strikes me as exceptionally gracious:

" … Helpful, Friendly, Courteous Kind …"

Wordsmith (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Though if you check my recent editing history on this page, you'll find I'm not always up to that standard! - BilCat (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Instead of "nobody's perfect," I'll simply say what you quite probably know on your own:    only One is Perfect

In saying so, I'm not — as some may accuse me — speaking of a Cat.

Wordsmith (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, only One is perfect. - BilCat (talk) 10:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

tons and pounds

With regards to this edit at presidential state car (United States), I don't understand where the factoid of 20,000 pounds is coming from. It's not in the source, and it doesn't equal the ten tons that is at the source. Can you help me understand? — fourthords | =Λ= | 23:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

In US Customary Units, 1 short ton = 2000 pounds. Although the source isn't that clear about it, it's not referring to the metric ton, which would be written that way in a US publication. - BilCat (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Tu-144

There are a lot of pictures in wikimedia about the TU-144, if I select a list and recreate a gallery at the end of the article would be ok? I think the average user is juts looking at the picture in the article rather than searching all available content. Let me know. Or is there a way to link the wikimedia categories directly? Tnx. Camp0s (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Not generally, no. Pictures are hosted on Wikimedia Commons, and we have the link to the Commons gallery at the bottom of the page. That is usually sufficient. - BilCat (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Link to the "Commons Gallery" ..but where exactly? (can't see it) Camp0s (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The Commons link is usually in the external links section at the bottom of the article, generally on the right side. It has to be added manually, so sometimes it's in a different position in the article, and sometimes not there at all. But it is in this case. - BilCat (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary

COASTIE I am (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hey Bill, you've been curating navy related articles for quite some time now. Do you know if there has even been any task force or sub-project specifically for the US Navy? I see that other organizations have such task forces at WP:SHIPS and MILHIST. I'm wondering if maybe USN had one at one time that isn't around anymore. Cheers - WOLFchild 23:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know. :( - BilCat (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh well. Thanks anyway - WOLFchild 00:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• btw - I thought you might like this and this. - WOLFchild 01:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Errors on map?

Can you list the errors you mention on the File:List of countries gained independance from the UK 2.svg map, please. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The obvious one is Barbados, which became independent in 1966. We don't seem to have a specific article that lists former British colonies, but Changes in British sovereignty comes close. It isn't complete either, as the US isn't listed. - BilCat (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

UTC

Bilcat - My username is Dixielnddelight and I have a simple question, however I'd like to give you some background information first. I recently edited the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga page for a school project. I am actually a student and we were supposed to choose a topic to edit. Every fact that I wrote in the page was very factual and led no argument whatsoever. I even sourced everything and linked a couple items. My question is...why delete everything I wrote if it wasn't vandalism and if it was factual? I'm not offended by any means. I understand that you have the right to delete and edit as you wish. I am just curious. Please let me know when you can. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dixielnddelight (talk • contribs) 17:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Sopwith Camel

The Sopwith Camel was a single engined aircraft (far too small to have another engine fitted) - and every single camel built was powered by a rotary engine. No two engines Camels ever - no Camels ever had a "stationary" engine (like, say, a radial or inline one. In this context, the sentence "Early production Camels were powered by a single rotary engine, most commonly either the Clerget 9B or the Bentley BR1" is not unclear, it's palpable nonsense. It implies (contrafactually) that there were some non production Camels that WERE twin engined, and DID have stationary engines. "Production Camels were powered by a rotary engine, most commonly either the Clerget 9B or the Bentley BR1" on the other hand, is quite clear, factual, and I'm sure what the cite says. In fact, even the word "production" is a bit redundant - since even the prototypes were of course fitted with rotary engines. A still better form might be something like "The Camel was powered by a rotary engine - in the case of production models, mostly the Clerget 9B or the Bentley BR1". No idea how this wording crept into the article - remarkable that it took an IP to pick it up, but most surprising of all that an experienced editor like you didn't see the point. All the same, sorry about the suggestion that you hadn't read the sentence - that was uncalled for - if only because we need to show full forbearance. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The content in question was apparently added by Kyteo, in one of his numerous article improvement campaigns. He usually is pretty good, and his work is sourced, so I was trying to give his work the benefit of the doubt, hence the tags to call checking the original source. But, I do get tired of standing up for others and getting no slack, so whatever. I'm moving on, as it's not worth the hassle. - BilCat (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I do wish - given that you apparently had no idea what the original was about anyway - that you had not "blindly" reverted. Caused me, and possibly others, no end of "hassle" and for what, I'd like to know? I suspect the IP was an experienced editor who forgot to log in (for all we know Kyteo himself?) rather than a complete tyro - as the edit was very much to the point. Just to be on the safe side (and not being sure you weren't going to continue the "twin in-line engined Camel campaign" I double checked the reference - I had on my own shelf a later work by the same author - and have changed the citation to that (I suspect he used the same words, he tends to) in any case to the same salient fact - that the Clerget and the BR1 were the most common engines used in production Camels. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the original source - that's all I was trying to facilitate in my "blind revert", as my edit summary stated. I don't know what the original editor was trying to say, but I'm certain it wasn't to say there were twin engined Camels. But without the source, I did not think it wise to go changing what was there without checking the source first. Look, I may not have gone about it the way you would have, but I did have a purpose in mind. Now that the source has been checked and the sentence fixed, I hope we can move on from this without any hard feelings. - BilCat (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

No hard feelings at this end for sure. Appreciated that your intent was good all along, of course. In fact that was the point of my unfortunate comment. Currently this article (probably our highest traffic WWI aircraft article?) reads rather like Mr. Bruce on a bad day - it badly needs a complete rewrite, in the mean time we need to keep the text meaningful and coherent, at least, with no misleading inferences, no matter how unintended. Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree it needs a rewrite. - BilCat (talk) 05:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 364 editors have been able to accomplish. The Misplaced Pages Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this template to your page.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

  Buster Seven Talk 15:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations, Bill. That is a lot of work! - Ahunt (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Fuck you!

I hope Dreaded Walrus fuck you!