User talk:BilCat/archive21

Page move

Can you please move Dominicana Flight 603 back to Dominicana DC-9 air disaster per this discussion[1]. Thanks. As I told[2] you once before, I make a mess of page moves and prefer others to do it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

PLAAF Airborne Corps

Hey, can you please take a look at a number of additions being made to this article and many other PLA articles. I think that the user is incorrect, but I also cant engage in an edit war. Garuda28 (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Add People’s Liberation Army Marine Corps to that list. Garuda28 (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Garuda28: Sorry for the late reply. I generally try to avoid edit wars on Chinese and Indian related pages if possible, as some of the edit warriors don't understand how Wikipedia works, and don't want to learn if it disagrees with what they already believe. It's less stressful for me that way. If it's still an issue, you can post a note at WT:MILHIST, as there are several admins in that project who may be able to help. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin F-35C

ΨΨΨ (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Hi BilCat. You reversed my editing because 'it appeared to be incorrect' and needed verification. I thought I added at the commend with the editing that the verification was in the Wiki article itself.

This is what I found at the LM F-35 article itself: 1 The United States Navy intends to buy 480 F-35Cs to replace the F/A-18A, B, C, and D Hornets and complement the Super Hornet fleet. 369.http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35c.htm 2 The current plan is that the Marine Corps will purchase 340 of the F-35B and 80 of the F-35C, while the Navy will purchase 260 of the F-35C. The five squadrons of Marine F-35Cs will be assigned to the Navy carrier air wings while the F-35Bs will be used on amphibious ships and ashore.

So first it is stated that the Navy intends to buy 480 F-35C's and the latter states that the Marine Corps will buy 80 and the Navy will buy 260, with a total of 340. For now I suggest to let the number be 480 because of the cite of the reliable source as can be seen above.

So please revert your reversion. Kind regards, ΨΨΨ

The Marine Corps is buying 80. -BilCat (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Unless you have and insert a reliable source of this, your reversion will be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ΨΨΨ (talk • contribs) 07:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@ΨΨΨ: It's already in the sources you cited yourself. Furthermore, you said, "The current plan is that the Marine Corps will purchase 340 of the F-35B and 80 of the F-35C, while the Navy will purchase 260 of the F-35C." The text you changed already stated "The U.S. Marine Corps plans to purchase 340 F-35B and 80 F-35C models"., and you changed it to 480 F-35C here. So, quite frankly, I don't know what your issue is. - BilCat (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Tu-95

BilCat, the edit still miniaturized the "Soviet Navy". Not sure if that's intentional or a side effect. Either way, miniaturizing the (historical) is a good idea!Garuda28 (talk) 05:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again. It should have worked, so I'm not sure what happened. I'll look into it. - BilCat (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Best edit description

From the Saab Viggen article: "Corrected headings per WP:AIR/SG guidelines - none of the aircraft are abandoned on an island somewhere starving, with a well-fed CBS TV crew, waiting to be voted off the island by other aircraft" - this made me laugh; well done :) Kyteto (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. :) - BilCat (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion concerning another editor at WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. D.Lazard (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@D.Lazard: If you mean the discussion about Bear-rings, I don't know how I was involved in that one. Sorry. - BilCat (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for this poor use of a template, resulting in a confusing notice. I simply meant that, as you were faced in the past with the same behavior of Bear-rings, you could be interested by the ANI discussion. D.Lazard (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Singular "they".

I reverted your edit on Ejector seat but it saved before I had a chance to put in an edit summary. They can be singular, and a pilot need not be male. --Dmol (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dmol: I personally use the singular "they" all the time, but on Wikipedia it's best to reword the sentence to avoid using them, per WP:GENDER#Pronouns, as it's use here is controversial. - BilCat (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

At the risk of you feeling stalked... ;p May I suggest "they" as singular is colloquially acceptable, but in formal ("encyclopedic"") usage, not. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Top Gun Maverick release

Umm... according to a lot of sources (such as The Hollywood Reporter), the movie is expected to be released on July 12, 2019 and not the same day as The Lion King live-action remake. So I think Rolling Stone made an error on the sequel's release date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.28.253 (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Then you need to cite those sources in the article. - BilCat (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Leonardo Helicopters AW249

Hello, on 20 may Noclador added "32 (Mangustas) remain in service as of 2018" with a "Rapporto Esercito 2017" ref. Then you added "[page needed][non-primary source needed]" for this ref. As this ref is not the best, I limited its umbrella to only the new information (Of the 59 A129s bought, 32 were in service in 2018), keeping the previous information supported by the flightglobal ref. I hope that explain, Bye! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It still doesn't explain why you undid my other edits. - BilCat (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

oooh, that's my mistake, sorry, corrected :( --Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Spanish help...ed

Hi, wish you get better soon. User SantiR06 seems very new ( SantiR06 (talk | contribs) (Created on 2018-05-08 at 18:08:45) ), and its edit commentary in Spanish is not very academic. Left a note in that language. Cheers, DPdH (talk) 10:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, reviewed latest edits to A-4AR article and seem suspicious... either ip or recently created users, not supported by citations. What's the process to request protection so only confirmed users can edit it? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@DPdH: The best place is WP:RPP. - BilCat (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Official language of Micronesia

"Removed Micronesia, as it's unsourced and not even mentioned in the article."

It is de facto official language of Micronesia by previous American rule. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Erkinalp9035: You still need a reliable published source when your claims are challenged per WP:PROVEIT, especially since it isn't even mentioned in the article, much less cited. Second, which Micronesia? The region of Micronesia, which includes 5 sovereign nations and 3 US territories, or the Federated States of Micronesia, which is only 1 of the 5 nations in Micronesia? - BilCat (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Federated States. Geographical regions cannot have official languages. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Erkinalp9035: More than likely they speak a local variant of English in the FSM, so even if it is influenced by American English, it's likely to be different. That's why we need a reliable published source that specifically supports the claim that the variety spoken in the FSM is American English. - BilCat (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually found an evidence to contrary, stating they use the vernacular even in formal contexts: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED105755.pdf Erkinalp9035 (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Lockheed P-38 Lightning

Do you think it's worth requesting semi-protection for the article to deal with the IP sock issue? Sario528 (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, we probably need to. - BilCat (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Request in at WP:RPP Sario528 (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Aeroflot Flight 2174

Hi BilCat, I've completed an article for this accident here but I can't move it to main space because of a redirect. I know you are knowledgeable about these things, could you please move it for me if you get a chance? Thanks, - Samf4u (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done @Samf4u: I performed a page swap. You can either tag the original for deletion to clear the history, or use it for another sandbox. - BilCat (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

That was fast! Thank you. - Samf4u (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC~

Your most welcome! - BilCat (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Tea?

I'm back.... Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 19:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Facepalm Welcome back! I hope you and yours and have been well. - BilCat (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• We're good. And you? Am semi-retired now as I'm on permanent office hours duties but I've been busy volunteering with the scouts to help mentoring cub scouts and special needs scouts. Will be back often doing clean ups from time to time. Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Same shite, different day (SSDD)

• Facepalm... This gave me a headache~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Reverted changes

May I ask you why you my changes despite they were completely correct? The given designation was thew officially Weapon's designation. Smartcom5 ^(Talk ?) 19:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Because we generally use the common name, and that's what's in bold in the first sentence of the Lead. - BilCat (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for reverting this vandalous edit. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 10:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much! - BilCat (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Aeroflot Flight 245

Hi BilCat, I've completed an article for this accident here but I can't move it to main space because of a redirect again. I applied for Page Mover rights but was denied. Is there a way I can do this without bothering you? - Samf4u (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were denied Page Mover rights. There are only about 200 Page Movers, as the requirements are quite strict. I actually enjoy helping out as a Page Mover, so don't worry about asking me for assistance. The best alternative is to place a {{Db-move}} tag to the desired title, but that can sometimes take a few hours for an admin to respond to. - BilCat (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Y Unless the admin is a talk page stalker and just happens to be online. MilborneOne (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to mention that one too. :) Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks you both. - Samf4u (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

ma ego

So long as my name shows up as one of the people who worked on the space force article in the first 24 hours I'm good.

Bojackh (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

FTR he calls it the "United States Space Force". --Bojackh (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't you be redirecting to my article and improving it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojackh (talk • contribs) 20:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Australia (continent)

I have opened up a discussion on the talk page, Talk:Australia_(continent)#What_comprises_the_continent_of_Australia?. Can you please consider notifying others of the discussion? --2601:183:101:58D0:5D57:4B1C:A325:C74C (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Dihydrogen monoxide

listing some of water's effects in a particularly alarming manner, such as accelerating corrosion and causing suffocation just sounded wrong to my ear - like the suffocation is an example of an "alarming manner", and the hoax involves strangling people while explaining science to them. I agree my attempted rewrite wasn't great there, but it's a slightly odd opening sentence. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be rewritten, and will try and find a less wordy way to do that. - BilCat (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

MOS shortcuts

Please do not create "MOS:FOO" or "WP:MOSFOO" shortcuts to pages that are not MoS pages (or "advertise" such mistaken shortcuts at the non-MoS page in question), as at WP:Naming conventions (geographic names). It confuses people, and it's also a maintenance hassle. If you run across another one at another naming conventions page, please feel free to replace it with a non-"MOS" one (I did this with the several that were at that particular page).  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks for letting me know. I was just following the other existing examples on that page without investigating deeper, as you evidently figured out. - BilCat (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Should Wikipedia:MOSFALK be deleted, or perhaps redirected somewhere else? - BilCat (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:RFD is reluctant to ever delete redirects; there's a "redirects are always 'cheap', no matter what" WP:FACTION in control of that process. Even utterly pointless MoS-related redirects get kept, despite strong arguments to delete them. This is one of the reasons I go out of my way to discourage creation of new ones that aren't quite on target. As for retargeting it, I don't know if we have any other place to send it. As long as it's not "advertised" at the NC page, probably no one will use it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, Thanks for the explanations. - BilCat (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

NP. I just checked, and zero of the MoS pages even mention the string "Falkland" [3].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Edits

What do you have against my Edits ? WhiteGuy1850 (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Which edits where? I've had many edits this week, and can't remember everyone I've reverted. - BilCat (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak for BilCat on the specifics, of course, but as an uninvolved bystander who notices that your user page is nearly at world-record level for complaints and warnings, you should probably start by reading your user page, then reading all the policies and guidelines linked in those complaints and warnings. This place does have a bit of a learning curve, and part of it is actually being willing to learn the curve and adjust to it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Airbus A380

You keep mentioning a consensus in your edits on Airbus A380 to remove European from the header. Can you please point me to this consensus, as there's no such consensus on the talk page of the aircraft or on the actual Airbus article. In fact the Airbus article states European, as do most of the other Airbus aircraft articles, so I'm not sure what consensus you're referring to. Canterbury Tail talk 01:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Besides that fact that Europe is a continent, thus European is highly misleading, it's based on the discussions concerning Template:Infobox aircraft type, which advises using "multinational" instead of "EU", and Lead and infobox should be contradictory. I'll try to find the specific discussion(s), if you're still interested. - BilCat (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah okay, that makes sense. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 10:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. - BilCat (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Oceania edit

Hello, I noticed you reverted my edit on the redirect Oceania (continent). I though~t it's quite obvious that Oceania (continent) should refer to Oceania and not to Australia (continent), I think most people would be looking for that page and not for Australia (continent). Various models in many countries do teach that Oceania is a continent and not Australia. Care to explain your reasoning?Civciv5 (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Civciv5: Read my edit summaries. - BilCat (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Not enough explanation. Oceania (continent) should quite obviously redirect to Oceania as it is the main page of the related subject. If you do not provide more arguments I will nominate Oceania (continent) for Redirects for Discussion.Civciv5 (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

If you haven't listened already, then I doubt anything else I say will persuade you. Hopefully someone else will listen. - BilCat (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Canadian Armed Forces Senior Service

Hello, I have noticed that you decided to revert my edit on the page on the subject of the Canadian Armed Forces. I had placed the commands in order of seniority, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force. On other pages having to do with Commonwealth Realms military services (examples, the British, Australian and New Zealand armed / defence forces), these page places their navies first, the army second and the air force last. Therefore I do not understand why Wikipedia does not wish to respect this custom in Canada, in particular when on many pages talking about the Royal Canadian Navy, it states that it is the senior service.

I have always believed that Wikipedia has a duty to help educated its users. Therefore, placing the Royal Canadian Navy first in the listings of the Commands of the Canadian Armed Forces seems to only enforce this mission. It does not cost a thing to change, and it only shows the respect to the traditions of the Canadian Armed Forces and Commonwealth military services.

Thank you kindly. user:ctjj.Stevenson 135.19.214.6 (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Please take the issue to the article's talk page, where other editors can participate in the discussion. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

US Constitution

The user added "disastrous" in place of controversial, which is an opinion so why did you revert my undo? IWI (chat) 21:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: You've misread the original diff, and are restoring "disastrous", not removing it. It's an easy thing to do, and I've done it many times myself, as the diffs can be confusing. Please check again. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow. That's embarrassing. It's my eyesight lol. Sorry about that. IWI (chat) 21:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment:Don't worry about it too much. As I said, it's happened to me many times, and for the exact same reason (poor eyesight), especially after a long editing session. - BilCat (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@BilCat: Maybe its a sign for me to stop and go to bed XD IWI (chat) 21:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image, Northrop Grumman EA-6B Prowler

Original

Straightened, colour adjusted, minor background cloning at corners due to straightening

As you're aware, I reverted the infobox image of Northrop Grumman EA-6B Prowler to the original image from the one with the faked background. I have tried to make a straightened version which shows the aircraft in its actual colours, without the cyan wash caused by the rear window of the tanker. I've put it in the article for now, but revert if need be. (Hohum ^@) 14:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hohum: It might be better to find another image that doesn't need any adjustments at all. Unlike Fox, I happen to believe that showing aircraft in their natural element is a very good thing. I especially love "beauty shots" in the infobox, the kind that grabs a reader's attention and makes them say "Wow! I have to learn more about this aircraft!" That usually means a background that isn't a monotone color. Oh well. - BilCat (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hohum:Can I throw in a driveby agreement? ;p The original looks better. The "decolored" version looks (to me, anyhow) like an attempt to create a phony documentary image (not to say that was the goal...), rather than capturing a real thing. It's also less visually interesting. Roger Siskel ^{everybody's a critic!} 11:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I've already changed the infobox image to one with natural colours. (Hohum ^@) 16:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary Edit

This edit feels unnecessary, but I'm not 100% sure about how table sorting works. Can you take a quick look? Sario528 (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sario528: I'm sorry, but I literally know nothing about tables. Hopefully one of my watchers can help you out. - BilCat (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It does not appear that adding a leading zero like that breaks the formatting. The template ({{Hs}}) only shows examples with dates like "1999-12-15". -Fnlayson (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for helping me with that issue. I wasn't feeling too good about it yet did it anyway. Your clarification helped out a lot! Thanks again!--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

You're most welcome. - BilCat (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Autocannon

Back in 2015 we had a lengthy argument about autocannons both in your talk page and on the Cannons talk page. In summary, I firmly believe that the vast majority of the world uses "autocannons" even in countries that use "cannon" as plural. At the end, you stopped reverting my edits and it has been fine for three years. It was hinted by another editor that sometimes a compromise is necessary, and that someone may have asked you to leave it be, as long as I didn't try to change cannon to cannons on the Cannon page. Unfortunately I did not save that e-mail, since I thought this was a done deal. This is really a big deal to me. Can you please just let the autocannon page be? --Trifler (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I honestly don't remember any such agreement, though I may well have left it alone for that time. Agreements need to be in Wikispace, preferably with some notice on the talk pages involved for future reference. Feel free to re-litigate the issue on one of the article's or WPMILHIST's talk page if it's that big a deal to you, and we'll see where the current consensus lies. - BilCat (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Attention needed (vandalism)

Greetings! Dear BilCat, as I'm not a frequent guest here, I would like to draw your attention to the following issue. Some pages related to the cars of Eastern Europe have been attacked by a vandal similar or identical to "Bandera Isuzu" who adds factually incorrect, blatantly false sentences, claiming that every car was "reverse-engineered" or "copied" from another one, despite the fact that they were built under license, in cooperation, etc. It seems he is either a sock of "Bandera Isuzu" or another notorious vandal that was blocked a dozen times for adding the same nonsense. If you can -- and you're great at protecting pages from vandals, -- please help to protect those articles from his vandalism and add them to your watchlist. Any help is much appreciated. Here are his IP and a list of attacks: [4]. 118.70.184.63 (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. Yup, that's certainly "Joe Bandera" (I've dropped calling him "Isuzu" so as not to tarnish the brand's name). I've been watching his (or her) edits since 2015, and those that you found fit his pattern, as does his IP location. Unfortunately, I'm not an administrator on Wikipedia, so I don't have the ability to apply page protection to articles or block users. Most of the time, he only edits in short spurts, so it's usually not something an admin will block or protect for, as his IP address usually changes by the his edit session. We usually just revert on sight, and keep the articles clean of his nonsense. - BilCat (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

...but why ^^

Hi BilCat I don't understand the reason why you deleted my addition under "CAF disambiguation", concerning the Compagnie Aérienne Française, a nowadays disappeared french airline. May you just tell me a little more ? Read you with pleasure Nicolas HEITZ-BRANDT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nicolas HEITZ-BRANDT: Because DAB pages are only for existing Wikipedia articles. - BilCat (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Hey mate,

Can you let me know why you've now twice reverted my corrections on the page about 'British English'?

FYI, Northern Ireland is not part of Britain (with or without the 'Great'), yet the R-Dropping section of that page incorrectly implies that it is. This isn't a matter of opinion or point of view or politics, it is a simple geographical fact - Great Britain is an island which encompasses England, Wales, Scotland; Northern Ireland is on a different island. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain explains this in more detail.

Perhaps the author had meant to say 'United Kingdom' instead of 'Britain'.

Anyway, how should I go about getting this error corrected?

looking forward to hearing from you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.208.181 (talk)

Britain commonly means the United Kingdom. My advice would be to get over it. - BilCat (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying accuracy of the information is not really important? That we can have 'alternative facts'?

Britain being conflated with the United Kingdom is indeed a common mistake - in America. Let's please not dumb this down to the level of the lowest common denominator.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.208.181 (talk)

No, because it's not a mistake, any more than conflating America with United States is a mistake, as many Latin Americans believe. See Britain.

I think you'll find that the residents of Northern Ireland would disagree.

And what makes you think I meant United States when I said America? This is a mistake that even Trump makes continuously.

Neither are mistakes, though certain minor groups make a lot noise about them. - BilCat (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Also you might want to read the first section at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Britain where this misusage of Great Britain is called out. Perhaps someone already tried to get this corrected but couldn't get it past some editors who think they know better. :-/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.208.181 (talk)

I'll worry about what the Irish, Northern or otherwise, think when they start calling the Irish Sea the Irish and British Sea. No wonder my ancestors fled Ireland! - BilCat (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

No one calls it the British Sea (with or without the Irish prefix). Literally no one. It's always been the Irish Sea, and pretty sure it always will be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10 has a decent explanation about the relationship and naming of all the entities that collectively make up the British Isles. It's worth watching even if you still disagree about the facts.

But getting back to my original question, it sounds like the standard to be applied on wikipedia is to be 'correct' according to some North Americans' opinions and views of the world, not actually correct; and the citizenry of the places being discussed should 'get over it'. Is that an accurate and fair summary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.208.181 (talk)

And no one outside Ireland cares about the British Isles naming dispute, hence my quip. But nope, the British government uses UK and British interchangeably too, as do many other UKians. - BilCat (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Beginning of an edit war

Hi BiCat, we have an IP user that is engaged in a variety of edit wars, including at Auxiliary ship. User:General Ization and I have tried, in vain, to explain WP:3RR (at the risk of running afoul of it ourselves) and attempted to engage the individual at the Talk page of the articles in question, without success. Perhaps you could identify a more successful approach, including possible Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring action. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) given them a 24-hour break so they can consider what they are doing. MilborneOne (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both. - BilCat (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Moscokvitch 408 - Popular culture

I would like consideration made to the sub heading of popular culture to be reinserted back to main page of the Moskvitch 408 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moskvitch_408

Here is an excellent article written by car enthusiasts ( not film fans) from Russia. It lists 10 Iconic soviet cars that have made an impact on the big screen . You will see that the 408 has made it to number 5 on the list https://fastmb.ru/autonews/autonews_rus/1291-top-10-kultovyh-avtomobiley-sovetskogo-kino.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matchkick (talk • contribs)

You must stop adding unnecessary, unimportant details based on websites that don't even fall under the definition of WP:RS. Their notability is extremely low and the sources are unacceptable. What you have added is not encyclopedic content; we don't list all films and books featuring a certain car. 117.6.78.249 (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for responding, but I'd really prefer that only registered users respond to posts on my talk page. It's less confusing that way, and allows me to contact you more directly in the future if a follow-up is needed. Cheers. - BilCat (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, sadly this does not offer help me improve my contributions nor does it offer any encouragement to submit further . There is no point in discussing further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matchkick (talk • contribs)

Please remove any links and the page of the IP 117.6........etc as I feel that this violates my privacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matchkick (talk • contribs)

That reply was not from me, but another user. And as far as I can tell, since you probably wouldn't respond that way to your own post, 117.6.78.249 is not your IP address, so therefore does not violate your privacy. Anyhow, I am not an administrator, so I can't remove the address from my talk page history even if it were your IP address. - BilCat (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

(driveby...) On the issue at hand, I'd agree, this fails on sourcing, but as an external link, it could be of interest to readers. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The information is on your page, you have edited and remove other posts. I can not see why this request is any different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matchkick (talk • contribs)

Yes, I can remove things from my page, but it's all still in the page history for anyone else to look at. But how does another user's IP address violate your privacy? That's what I don't understand. - BilCat (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

really not sure where this third party has come from. I have now taken the IPs off this front page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matchkick (talk • contribs)

The IP is another user who tried to help me out by answering your question. The IP address has nothing to do with your account, so please don't remove the IP addresses again. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Seversky P-35 reverted

U recently reverted a change i made to the Seversky P-35 with the reason that "specs are for one variant only". The thing is that the P-35A and J 9 are basically the same variant. The weapons are almost the same too, its only the cartridges and some minor things like firerate that differs. I personally dont see a reason y not to include the Swedish armament in the specs as the P-35A was originally designed for the Swedish.--Blockhaj (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It's generally too complicated to include sub-variants, and your addition illustrates very well. Also, you didn't specify your sources. - BilCat (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

If i added sources would I be allowed to add the armament of the Swedish variant? As i illustrated it shouldnt be confusing for any reader. Also on the note of sub-variants i would love to bring up the discussion of adding subvariants. On the Swedish wikipedia were i write the most we rarely have a problem with adding info on subvariants. Here is an example which easily shows and explains the different stats of all variants. https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_18 --Blockhaj (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Differences like armament changes are probably better dealt with in the variants section.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Indian Navy aircraft

Hi BilCat per this page List_of_active_Indian_military_aircraft#Naval_Air_Arm and the references there Do-228 and Il-38 are in service. I do remember that the Il-38's are being phased out and being replaced by the P-8I's but some are still in service until the additional order gets fulfilled. Let me know if you have questions on this. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Someone messed up this article real bad

Bill, I literally got a headache and a lol from reading the reference section of Stealth aircraft. Who screwed up the links? Oh man.... --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dave1185: Sorry for the late reply. I looked at the page when you commented, but wasn't able to reply at that time, then forgot to later. In answer to your question, I figured it was some moron who didn't pay attention to what he was doing, and I was right. Facepalm I tried to revert it, but there was still an error, so it may take awhile to sort it out. - BilCat (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Facepalm Oh my.... ROFLMAOL.... --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought you'd get a kick out of seeing who made that edit. Just when I thought I was perfect, God once again shows me I'm not. :) - BilCat (talk) 10:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I might have fixed the problem - a result of the xxxx that is list defined references.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Nigel, for figuring out the problem fixing it. Yet another reason I don't like list-defined references. - BilCat (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Your edit on Oceania

I see you reverted my edit that restored Oceania to the continents category. Why?

Oceania is considered a continent in many countries around the world, their continental models teach that Oceania is a continent. Why do you think it should not be in the continents category? This doesn't make any sense. There are pages in the category like 'Indian subcontinent' and 'Zealandia', of which India is not even a continent and Zealandia is not one of the common seven continents. Oceania is not a continent according to some continental models, but is considered on by others, so why should it not be in that category?

I intend to also revise the lead on Oceania someday, to make it more accurate.

Civciv5 (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)·

You need to discuss your changes on the article's talk page first, and get a consensus to support your changes to the Lead. As to categories, that probably needs to be discussed at Talk:Continent, as it's a complicated issue. - BilCat (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I already posted an edit request for Oceania's lead more than a month ago and no one has replied except for you. How am I supposed to get a consensus if no one replies? Also, why can you just edit pages without consensus? Oceania's page was in the continents category for a long time, then you came along and just reverted it, without asking for consensus. Civciv5 (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Two users have since commented on the Oceania talk page. My suggestion to discuss the categories on the Continent talk page is an effort to avoid an edit war where you and I continually revert each other. I'm hoping other users can suggest some viable alternatives.

Also, don't change the comments of other users on any talk page, aside from obvious trolling and vandalism, as it's considered very rude. In fact, your changes could be considered vandalism, so you're lucky you didn't get a warning for it. - BilCat (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

What? When did I change comments of someone on any talk page? I don't remember anything about this. Civciv5 (talk) 07:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Civciv5: Right here, where you changed "Trump" to "Drumpf". Maybe it was your little brother or your dog who did it? - BilCat (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually I have an app installed on Chrome called Drumpfinator, which changes all instances of Trump to Drumpf. I did not realize it also did this with editing pages, I assure you I did not do this deliberately. Civciv5 (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Civciv5: Be sure to click the "show changes" button before saving an edit to verify the changes are what you really meant. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes people take things too far, and it bites them on the backside. Maybe it's time to disable that app? :) - BilCat (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Hey, BilCat. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Kpgjhpjm 02:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you very much! I knew it was in August, but haven't looked up the specific date in a long time. - BilCat (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Categorization

Honestly, that was an answer to a question eight years ago when circumstances were different. I don't really remember what the issue was, sorry. There's people more deeply involved in categorization; presumably they know. DS (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Altered Aircraft Photos

Hey, just saw the edit on MiG-29 - how common are these altered photos and where are they coming from? (No wonder it seemed so much clearer than the current one) Garuda28 (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Most of aircraft ones are coming from the same user who modified that image,and he's made quite a few, possibly dozens. There are other images, such as of guns, that have been modified to remove backgrounds, and even self-created images of guns (computer-made images), that others have created and uploaded. - BilCat (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Understood - I'll make sure to keep my eye out for them. Garuda28 (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Most of the images from the user I mentioned are marked "altered" in the filename, but not all of those have faked backgrounds. He also crops or centers images, and those are usually acceptable, and marked "cropped". - BilCat (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hi BilCat, if you don't mind, I wanted to ask you a question; do you know if the Chinese Navy (PLAN) is using US Navy hull codes for their ships? A pair of images on the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning page have "CV-16" as part of their page titles/image descriptions, which at one point made it way into the article for a short time. (The ship is marked "16" on the hull, but not "CV"). I've tried asking the two editors that uploaded those images if they have sources confirming the PLAN is using American hull codes, but so far I'm not getting anywhere.

Then at List of active People's Liberation Army Navy ships I noted that in the lead, and the table for amphibs, (plus several class pages linked therein), and the amphib gallery, there are multiple uses of several hull codes (eg: "LPD, LST, LSM", etc.) and ship descriptions, such as "landing ship, medium"). There were also uses of "SSN, SSBN and SSK" in the submarine table, but they have just been removed. (There was some discussion about that on the talk page).

Additionally, do you know if the Chinese are using these hull codes in any capacity, official or informal, other than on ship hulls? Or are people incorrectly using them in here? (and possibly other non-American naval pages). Apparently some questionable sources are using these codes as well for non-USN ships.

I thought I'd try asking you. If you don't know, then perhaps I'll ask at WT:SHIPS or WT:MILHIST. Any info you can provide would be appreciated. Thanks - wolf 05:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I've seen the same things over the years, but I haven't seen any English sources that state that's what they use. Since I can't read Chinese, I don't know what those sources state. You might try asking at MILHIST, as there may be some Chinese speakers there. - BilCat (talk) 06:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Dave1185 reads Chinese, I think, but he's not been on-WP much lately. - BilCat (talk) 06:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. - wolf 07:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Meep! Meep! You paged?!? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 04:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the OP's questions? - BilCat (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Long answer short: NO. Not even in any Chinese-language publication or media platform (especially those from China, Taiwan, Hong Kong or Macau) that I've come across so far. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

No, the numbers are just ship numbers (as they are in the US). The ship "hull types" are generally understood and commonly used around the world, but each navy defines the class of a specific ship type according to their uses. What Western sources "assign" to Chinese naval vessels is just for general reference indicating their (sometimes presumed) equivalency. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk page contribution requested

<<Comments removed>>

I'm not an activist, and I'm not going to spend my wiki-time looking up convicted criminals and adding their names to lists where they are mentioned. I'll just de-watch the Cornerstone University page, as I'm not an alumni, never went there, and I'm not even sure why it was on my list. - BilCat (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Great balls of fire!

• Per this edit, could you (and fellow page watchers) help to proof read the cited news article a bit? Am I the only one of the opinion that the engine should be ready for mass production by the end of the year? Or is it the aircraft that should be? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Back Atcha

Hi Bil, I am around in the background and do some "microediting" from time to time. All is well, but real life remains busy. Got my daughter out of college - and married - and my son just started his second year. Looking forward to retiring when he's out and maybe getting back to major editing. God bless you and yours! Askari Mark (Talk) 19:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) - it would be great to have you back! - Ahunt (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Life is hard but keep on supporting you kid to the fullest Jamaica Queen (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Miss lou

Jamaica appreciated your edit on the great Louise Bennett- Covertly big thank to you bilcat. Like your favourite reggae artist Bob Marley say ... One love Jamaica Queen (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks! - BilCat (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Refference on American

I can't get you a refference. No one has made a column or any kind of writen opinion about American and America and it's real meaning. My writings were based on hearing people using the term American in media, newspapers, internet, and regular people in their regular everyday talks. Dandarmkd (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dandarmkd: You have to cite reliable published sources in a neutral manner. You'll notice that the article does not make any claims about whether or not "American" or "America" is used correctly or not, but instead documents actual usage using reliable published sources. - BilCat (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Evaluate United Aircraft Corporation

Hey BilCat. I was just wondering if you can evaluate.re-evaluate United Aircraft Corporation into B-class since I do not know who has the authority to evaluate articles. And if you can, an re-evaluation of Sukhoi Superjet 100 would be great as well. Josephua (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, but quite honestly such evaluations are beyond my abilities. Perhaps one of my talk page watchers can do it, or knows someone who can. - BilCat (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk page watchers? Josephua (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)People like me, who put the talk pages of other users on our watchlist. Many users, such as BilCat, welcome such watchers. To answer your original question, I'm not capable of such an evaluation but I wonder if maybe MilborneOne or Ahunt would be willing and able? Sario528 (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Most of the aircraft project assessment is done by User:Petebutt so we get a consistent approach, might be worth asking them. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you Bil, Sario, and Milborne. I'll ask Pete about this. Josephua (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Done--Petebutt (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Petebutt: Thanks Pete! - BilCat (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Parent-child cats

WP:SUBCAT "Apart from certain exceptions (i.e. non-diffusing subcategories, see below), an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. In other words, a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category (unless the child category is non-diffusing – see below – or eponymous)." - Ahunt (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

England vs Britain

Hi Bill I saw your wiki page on Port Royal and noticed English and England referenced, even though many of the main players were from other parts of Britain, including notably the famous Sir Henry Morgan from Wales. I suggest the terminology is corrected. Regards Tony Willicombe Penarth, Wales. Cymro2810 (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

English is used for the governments before 1707, and British for afterwards. - BilCat (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Retractable Roof Stadiums

All of the American retractable roof stadiums qualify as retractable roof stadiums on this planet. Is there any reason why you reverted this edit? G. Capo (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason. - BilCat (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:Retractable-roof stadiums is covered by the child category Category:Retractable-roof stadiums in the United States already. So adding the higher, parent category is redundant. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

If a user wanted to find all of the retractable-roof stadiums in the world on Wiki, in one click a user could easily access the info. The way we have it currently set, you would need at least two clicks for the American retractable-roof stadiums. In this case I believe redundancy is a good thing. No? G. Capo (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The guidelines disagree with you. Disregard them at your risk. - BilCat (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Which guidelines is that? That we need at least two clicks to access something that is supposed to serve as a shortcut? G. Capo (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

G. Capo This one: WP:SUBCAT ...an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. - BilCat (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Point taken. The question then becomes do we really need an American subcategory. There is only roughly 50 retractable roof stadiums on this planet. Personally, I believe it's a bad look in that it seems to highlight the attitude of "American exceptionalism". We're not exactly discussing all of the rivers of the world here. G. Capo (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

That's an issue for discussion elsewhere. As to "exceptionalism", 25% seems exceptional to me. - BilCat (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Resurrection man?

I'm hoping you can help. I'm looking to resurect Ed Iskenderian, which was deleted by User:RandomXYZb (who's no longer active) as a copyvio. I'd happily rewrite, since it would fill a redlink without me having to do a bunch of research. I did this on Hirohata Merc, but it's been so long, I can't recall who it was sent me the info from the deleted page. Any thoughts on who to ping would be a big help. Thx. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Whoops, never mind. It's in the Merc page history. Thx anyhow. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you figured it out, because I didn't have a clue! Cheers. - BilCat (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Noticifcation

Hey next time you have an issue pertaining to me I'd appreciate it if you would ping, so I could discuss / defend my side of the argument. - FOX 52 (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, but it wasn't purposeful. I thought you'd've had WP:AIR on watchlist. I kept wondering why you didn't respond. I'll try to remember next time.

@FOX 52: Just in case you aren't watching here either. Honestly, I'm still getting used to using pinging regularly. - BilCat (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

OK fair enuff - FOX 52 (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Magnum PI

I wished I had listened to you to begin with. By insisting on mentioning the speculation about Magnum PI's setting, I merely opened up Pandora's Box! I just hope my last edit is satisfactory to all parties AND consistent with Wiki rules and guidelines. Thank you for being a true and faithful servant to Wiki! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChemMater (talk • contribs)

@ChemMater: Thank you. I could have done a better job of explaining myself. Experience is a great teacher, and I've learned many lessons the hard, both on Wikipedia and in the rest of life. - BilCat (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Americans

Why did you revert my edit to Americans? —Eli355 (👄👄👄👄 • 📜📜📜📜 • 🍩🍩🍩🍩) 21:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Guess. - BilCat (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Colt AR-15 / AR-15 style rifle article split

I'm reaching out to active editors who were involved with the discussions related to the split of the AR-15 topic into two primary articles (Here [[5]], here[[6]], other?). I somewhat recall the discussions leading to this split. What I don't recall is where all the discussions took place. I've linked to a discussion on the Colt AR-15 talk archive but I recall discussions occurring in other locations. I was hoping to get some suggestions for finding those other discussions. I'm doing this because I'm trying to understand the intended scope of the AR-15 style rifle article [[7]]. Was it meant to be just "clones" of the Colt AR-15 or also include derivative rifles (different operating mechanisms etc)? Also what other article names were considered and why. Thanks for any suggestions you might have. Springee (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

LA class

"Ukraine" makes sense. I was thinking UK as in United Kingdom for some reason... Thanks - wolf 23:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: It's fooled me before too, but this is for language codes, not countries. British English is GB. - BilCat (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hawker Tempest

I thought I was correctly editing the page due to the fact that percent is spelled per cent and also percent in the page. My edit was done with utmost respect, or so I thought. Chappyman1980 (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Chappyman1980: I understand, but British spelling uses "per cent". If there are any occurrences of "percent", they should be changed. - BilCat (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Bill

For dealing with that when I wasn't on the ranch :) Simon Adler (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Friends help friends clean up rubbish. - BilCat (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Sunshine!

		Sunshine!
		Hello BilCat! Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 00:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

My dear friend

Deeply moved by your kind and supportive words. I will ping over something much more substantial with my thoughts on this. Simon Adler (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Take your time, and reply when you can. - BilCat (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

M 39 Cannon

This was from the Springfield Armory Museum collections and they worked on the M 39 Cannon, how is that an unreliable source and I was still working on it... Tirronan (talk) 07:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC) Nevermind I'm taking this to Milhist and let them rule on it consider this notification.Tirronan (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I've asked the Milhist group to look at the references and the incident here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#M_39_Cannon and I will abide by their ruling. You may reply there.Tirronan (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tirronan: I'm sorry you weren't able to wait for my reply, for whatever reason. Now that you've sought an answer elsewhere, I don't see the need to reply there. - BilCat (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

EL/M-2032‎

Glad you got rid of it Bil, it was just an ancient copy-and paste job from an old ELTA promo site I strongly suspect. Was just too tired to tackle it. Simon Simon Adler (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Simon Adler: Yeah, that's what it looked like to me. I saw you had edited a lot around the time it was added, but didn't dig deeper to who actually wrote it, hence the pre-emptive apology if necessary. :) - BilCat (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Simon Adler: Found it - only edit of a registered user, who promptly disappeared. - BilCat (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah thought as much Bil, copy, paste and run job. Sigh. Simon Adler (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Simon Adler: I've reported to our resident copyvio sniffer/admin, User:Diannaa. If it is, she'll probably find it, and zap it from the history if necessary. - BilCat (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Raven Forward Air Controllers reverts

Hello, Bil,

I note that a revert war is heating up in the above article. Tango28 is downright abusive in his edit summaries, and I have diplomatically informed him that's a great way to get banned. I am also intervening, with an aim of defusing the situation.

I've read through the reverts. It boils down to the fact he doesn't--and doesn't seem to want to--know WP's definition of a RS. He is running into the same problem I have. Because of the top secret classification of the Ravens, much information on them is suppressed. To date, the Secret War in Laos is short on history. Self published books by participants are admittedly not reliable sources, but can be very informative Further reading in lieu of further nonexistent reliable sources. I have listed self-published works as Further reading without citing them as sources. They got deleted anyhow.

I've been reading up on the Further reading requirements, and believe I can channel Tango28's self-published works list into a Further reading section while restoring my previous list.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Georgejdorner: Thanks. I've run into authors before who had great difficulty adjusting to WP, and were eventually banned. I hope you're successful in helping him learn the ropes. His other major issue was the spamming of websites he's associated with. Hopefully you can address that with him too. - BilCat (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of his spamming. Is it that he is posting links to commercial websites?Georgejdorner (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, that's what BilCat means. Editors should not use articles to promote their sites. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Violett Beane

I attempted to politely resolve the matter but no such luck, apparently. I would like to bring this to a satisfying end as soon as possible. Deathstroke64 (talk) 05:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Deathstroke64: The proper place to attempt to politely resolve the matter is on the article's talk page, where, coincidentally, a discussion on the matter has already been initiated at Talk:Violett Beane#Names as per WP:COMMONNAME. Please discuss the issue there, and wait nto make any further changes to the article until a consensus is reached. Otherwise, you will probably be blocked for edit warring. - BilCat (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

New toolbars

I heard that you don't like the new toolbars. Don't worry, Because right now, I am going to create a user script which will restore some of the classic MediaWiki features. --Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 02:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. - BilCat (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Olive Branch

Howdy, BilCat, I hope our back-and-forth on Antilles hasn't made you dislike me too much. You have more experience on here than I do so I wanted to reach out and ask, in such a situation should we have been using Talk:Antilles? I'm still learning the ropes, so I do appreciate your guidance and feedback.

Also, thanks to your most recent edit comments on the above-mentioned article, I think I now understand our disconnect on the subject. You and I may not disagree as much as we both initially thought. If you're interested I would be glad to continue the discussion of conquest and invasion (in the appropriate forum, of course); if not, I understand.

Thank you, again, for your feedback, and another 'thank you' for all the good work you do here on Wikipedia. LtMillsap (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@LtMillsap: Thanks for your kinds words, and I'm glad we we're able to reach what I hope is an equitable solution. Wikipedia discourages edit warring, and prefers that discussions be done on talk pages, though I like refer to what we were doing as "edit discussing". It's an easy way to get blocked, and I do know better, but I have a stubborn streak which borders on being "austic", but technically isn't, or so I've been told. We're just fortunate an admin didn't block us. Anyway,I wouldn't recommend doing any "edit discussing" in the future! :) - BilCat (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Bangalore Revert

Request you to look into the lists of educational institutions mentioned on the page: Bangalore. Only ones that are of national/international importance and premier research universities are needed to mentioned. Bangalore has over 300 university-colleges. Therefore it is necessary to stick to the principle of only highlight the institutes of importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengalurumaga (talk • contribs) 09:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Ki-201 Revert

Hi! I am wondering about the reversion you made to Nakajima Ki-201. All of the previous changes I had made were in line with the references used for the page itself. I am new here, so I am not so sure how things like this are disputed. Karyū201 (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) While I am not familiar with the article in question, as a general rule, questions/concerns about a specific edit are usually best discussed on the talk page of the article itself. I would also recommend that when you post that question, include a link to the edit you are concerned about. Sario528 (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Godfather!

• This was a good one~! :) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 04:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dave1185: Glad you liked it - I'd already used "Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater" last week. :) Good to see you're still popping in. - BilCat (talk) 05:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Aérospatiale SA 340 Gazelle prototype in 1967, with a conventional tail rotor.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

IP Sock

Good call on the IP Sock...I was suspicious as well.--RAF910 (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@RAF910: Thanks. I wasn't certain, but I've learned to trust my gut. I've missed plenty socks too, but that helps hone my senses for the next time. It's not foolproof either way, and I've been wrong on my hunches several times. It's funny, though. One would think it would be pretty easy to come back on Wikipedia after being blocked/banned if one just stayed away from the types of issues that got one in trouble, but it's hard to change one's nature. A contentious person just can't help being contentious etc. - BilCat (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Reality

Thank you Bill. Bless you and yours. Simon Adler (talk) 03:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Simon Adler: You're most welcome. Blessings to you and yours also. - BilCat (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Appealing a move discussion

Hi User:SMcCandlish, I'm posting this on my talk page, as my browser can't handle your encyclopedia-length talk page. It crashes. :(

The move discussion at Talk:Interstate 285 (Georgia)#Requested move 2 December 2018 was closed after less than 24 hours, with all support comments apparently coming from the highway project members. Absolutely none of them commented on the merits of whether there is a primary topic or not, choosing instead to follow an individual project's apparently unwritten customs. Is it worth trying to appeal this, and if so, how? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Definitely. That's a procedurally wrong close. It's appealed at WP:MR, which has the steps listed. The first is to ask the closer to undo the close and why (civilly); MR generally won't accept a "case" if that motion hasn't been gone through. PS: I'll try to do something about my talk page today.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

This appears to have been an honest mistake (though do MR it if the closer refuses). What happened was this was not an RM, it was someone posting on 15 February 2018 about maybe moving the page. Then an RM was opened yesterday, but it improperly used the 15 February 2018 date as the opening date. This made it show up immediately as an old RM that needed closure. The closer simply didn't notice the weird discrepancy, and thought that the RM had run its course, because the system incorrectly reported that it had, due to the RM not being opened properly with a new timestamp.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Yeah, that was my mistake in converting the discussion to an RM so it would be tagged on the article. I probably should have tagged it manually instead. Should I still contact the closer and explain my mistake? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Yarp.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I've asked for a rationale and reversal on the closer's talk page as neutrally as I know how under thee circumstances. Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Forsooth, thine own circumstances methinks thou mean'st. >;-) I also asked the closer to undo it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

"the circumstances". :) - BilCat (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Miracle in Miami (2018) → Miami Miracle

Hey, could you move Miracle in Miami (2018) to Miami Miracle. This is the more common term, and is certainly the primary topic. Lizard (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: I can move it, but it's probably best to get a quick consensus on the talk page first, or it may get moved around a few more times. - BilCat (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: Discussion opened at Talk:Miracle in Miami (2018)#Article Title. - BilCat (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding my edit on Fire OS

When you said that the OS doesn't necessarily show ads on the lock screen, what situations are there that don't do this? I own a Kindle Fire HD and it always shows me ads. Thanks, Jebcubed (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jebcubed: What I meant was that users can opt out of receiving lock-screen special offers (ads), for a fee of course, or purchase an ad-free version, which is usually the tablet's cost plus the fee. (See here on Amazon's site for more information.) I also use Fire tablets and Kindles, and either buy the ad-free version, or purchase the opt-out after a few weeks of use, when the ads become annoying Simply mentioning that there are lock-screen ads without qualifying that they can be disabled is incomplete information, and that's why I removed it. (Once the opt-out is purchased, the ads are optional, and can be turned back on or off at any time.) However, I looked just now at the article, and I don't see the special offers or opt-out options mentioned at all, and it probably should be. - BilCat (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Air rage

To elaborate on my most recent edit summary (because, really, we should be doing it this way and not that way), yes, there were certainly incidents prior to 1994. I did find a few books online which discussed earlier incidents (as far back as someone stabbing someone on a flight from Havana to Miami in the late 1940s) but did not give sufficiently precise information (what date exactly, what airline, what exactly happened and how it was disposed of) to warrant including them on the list even with a source.

One of the authors of those books noted that information from prior to the mid-1990s is probably going to be sketchy because the airlines kept those things under wraps pretty much by not pressing charges (like the incident with Jim Morrison and that friend of his where they flew from LA to Phoenix drunk and harassed the flight attendants). They didn't want the public to think that their fellow passengers might be more of a danger to them than all the other things that people worried about when flying.

But after the incident with Mr. Finneran I guess they could no longer pretend. Daniel Case (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

No personal affront to your efforts is intended, but please leave the tag in place. It's there to attract attention from other editors who may have access to information you don't. Considering the history of aviation is over 100 years old, 24 years is indeed recent. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that point (although honestly, the history of modern commercial aviation is about half that time, really (Did Orville get mad at Wilbur in flight for some reason and smack him, requiring medical attention upon landing? Maybe we should include that, too). As for {{very long}}, my plan when I created it and realized that it was getting rather long was to split it down by decades—I just haven't gotten around to doing that yet. Daniel Case (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Aviation/Style guide

I already have that going on at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide#%22Deadliest_crash%22_trivia Tigerdude9 (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I know, which is why I don't understand why you couldn't wait for the discussion to reach a clear consensus, especially on the wording. - BilCat (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello BilCat, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 08:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays BilCat and all! -Fnlayson (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Alcohol free?

I'm not so politically correct I'll censor myself, I just don't know (or care ;p ) what flavor you celebrate. So, greetings of the season, & may they bring you joy. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For all your work. BlueD954 (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree, well-earned! - Ahunt (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Xmas

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Please keep a watch on Yudirai account. He is the person vandalizing Mangalore related articles with poor Tulu content

I request you to please keep a watch on this user account Yudisthir Shivaprasad Rai Yudirai(talk).
He is the same person who is repeatedly vandalizing Mangalore related articles with Tulu/Tulunadu content, using multiple accounts.
Yesterday, the Mangalore article got protected from IP edits due to his Tulu related vandalisms.
On 18th July 2018, the Tulu Nadu received page protection from his IP related vandalism. But, since Yudirai(talk) user is autoconfirmed, he again vandalized that article the very next day.
He has also vandalized the Bunt (community) article as well. The user account Bunt56(talk) is a sock-puppet of Yudirai(talk).
He could certainly vandalize the Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada articles once again.
223.186.240.27 (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Portland, Oregon

I deeply resent your unnecessary accusation of disruptiveness. I made a good faith edit with solid logic behind it. Someone reverted my edit with no explanation whatsoever. I reinstated it with explanation. This is not disruptiveness. This is using available tools to attempt to productively contribute. You again reverted me, again with no explanation. Who's being disruptive here? — Ipoellet (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

You were selectively deleting information on specific schools while leaving in other information about schools in the metro area, and without changing the wording which stated the schools were in the Metro area, as the previous edit summaries rightly pointed out. I saw that as disruptive, and still do. Perhaps it wasn't your intent, but the effect was disruptive. - BilCat (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!

BilCat,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

SCCY Edits

Bilcat,

I made those edits because they are false information. They weren’t cited by the person who recently made the change. I am an executive in the company and am looking to have it corrected. Mrwetwork (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mrwetwork: Thanks, I'll look into it. Also, as a person connected to the company, you generally aren't permitted to edit articles related to your company per Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest Policies. You can post on the article's talk page, and request that changes be made. - BilCat (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Airbus Helicopters

I have to disagree with your recent "Corrected national origin as with most Airbus/Eurocopter products" changes as we have not had these down as multinational before and all the types are still clearly built by different parts of the company by the original manufacturers. The Puma family for example is an old Aerospatiale design built in France and has little connection with the Germany part of the company and it the same with the EC-145 helicopters built in Germany. Just thought I would raise it here first rather than revert your changes! MilborneOne (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Just to note that the Type Certificates clearly show the German-built products as Airbus Helicopters Deutschland rather than Airbus Helicopters based in France. MilborneOne (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

While I understand your point, another user made most of these changes about a year and a half ago, and most already had Multinational at that point. My prime reasoning is that Eurocopter itself, and Airbus, is multinational, and that is generally what we have gone by, not where it is assembled. - BilCat (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that the companies are multinational but I am not aware that the helicopter production is! We could add a footnote to indicate where they actually come from per Airbus A320 family. MilborneOne (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it's just easier to use Multinational. Anything else is just too much work for little benefit. But of course your welcome to disagree with me and take to WP:AIR. I've been wanting to have a clarification on the use and meaning of "national origin" anyway, and now might be as good a time as any to discuss it. People seem to take the word "origin" too literally, and that wasn't its original intent. It basically was supposed to mean the nationality of the companies involved as the prime contractors, include changes during production, not just where it was from "originally". Cheers. - BilCat (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Mach conversions????

You say that "at high altitude" (you don't quantify what this means) each mach number is 660 mph, and this is standard for aircraft articles. Where are you getting these ideas from? Can you point me towards the wikistyle page where this is laid out? Or is this your personal idea?

Ninjalectual (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ninjalectual: See Talk:Concorde#Max speed / Mach number, particularly Khamba Tendal's reply. - BilCat (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Protection

Hi there. Just say if/when you wish to modify the protection. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I will. - BilCat (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Take care with rollback/twinkle

Hi. Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive383 please do take care not to revert any good faith edits without leaving a suitable edit summary. There is more detail at WP:ROLLBACKUSE. Thank you for your continued efforts — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Thanks, but I usually do leave summaries for what I believe are good faith edits, or issue warnings. If you disagree with my interpretation of good faith, that's a somewhat separate issue I'd be happy to address specifically. Otherwise I don't know what you're disagreeing with. - BilCat (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah,I figured out what you were linking to, as it wasn't readily apparent. That IP had the appearance of a troll, so I handled it without trying to draw attention to the edit. I did give a summary on the second edit, and I still have reservations about the edits and IP. Dennis usually has a good reason for reverting, though he neglects leaving edit summaries more often than I'd like. Since he hasn't addressed the issue, I've left it alone for the time being, but I still have a strong feeling we're being played by this user. My gut is usually right on this. - BilCat (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

reference for 412th Test Wing using Boeing owned KC-46 aircraft

I am not sure how you prove a negative, but all of the referenced deliveries of KC-46 aircraft (6 to date) have been to Altus and McConnell with none to Edwards, and any photos of flight testing at Edwards clearly show a civilian N number on the aircraft, like this one File:KC-46 refuels F-35 20190122.jpg. Can I find a reference that specifically says that the Edwards aircraft are not owned by USAF? No, but it is pretty obvious that these are Boeing, not USAF airplanes. --rogerd (talk) 06:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

If you can't prove it, don't make the statement. - BilCat (talk) 07:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The KC-46 in that photo carries civil registration N842BA, the FAA-registered owner is Boeing. - Ahunt (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The reason I put it there was that the 412th was listed as an "Operator", when it doesn't have any aircraft of its own. The implication of listing it as an operator would be that it has USAF assets. Perhaps we should remove the 412th as an operator. --rogerd (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

It shouldn't be to difficult to find a source somewhere about who owns the aircraft being used by the 412th, and who is operating them. Also, if the 412th is operating them for test purposes, then they are an "operator" regardless of who owns the specific airframes. - BilCat (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

It is quite possible that the 412th is the operator, even though Boeing owns the aircraft. They may be leased aircraft. Many airlines operate aircraft that they don't own. - Ahunt (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

annotated links in See also sections

I would disagree with you when you said they "aren't very informative", because rather than a link to something that the reader may not understand the meaning or significance, the annotated link gives the short description, which, if properly written, can help describe what the significance of that article is, and how it relates to the article he/she is reading. When you have a "See also" section, I think it is good to let the reader know how the links there relate to the main article. As for "looking awful", well, that's your opinion. Of course it is optional, but this is one of the main purposes of the {{short description}} project --rogerd (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is optional. Get a consensus on each talk page for their usage, per BRD. BTW, I opposed implementation of Short Descriptions in the first place, though of of course it was after they had already been implemented. That decision was made above the Community level, and so no one had the opportunity to oppose its implementation beforehand. Using short descriptions to enable the annotated links came afterwards, as I understand it. I can't wait to see what else they'll be used for, but at least it wont be DAB pages, as tnay was stopped pretty quickly. - BilCat (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Avro Arrow addition

No, the XB-70 is not a fighter. But they are both delta-wing aircraft of a similar era. Both flew at very high speeds and altitudes and both were ultimately cancelled. Mechengbesteng (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mechengbesteng (talk • contribs) 17:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mechengbesteng: The F-108 is much more comparable to the CF-105 than the XB-70, and is already listed there. - BilCat (talk) 06:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Avro Canuck related to Avro Arrow

How are they not related? From the second paragraph in the summary on the Avro Arrow: "The Arrow was the culmination of a series of design studies begun in 1953 that examined improved versions of the Avro Canada CF-100 Canuck." Mechengbesteng (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Can I butt in, here? That's like saying the Hurricane is related to the Hunter because they're both built by Hawker. In context, "related" means "sharing common components", not "superficially connected". So, your B-70 connection is flimsy in the extreme, & the CF-100 to CF-105 just as flimsy. You want "related"? How about F-86 Sabre & Canadair Sabre? And "similar"? At least they should both be fighters...tho candidly, I'm not sure the MiG-21 is really so like the CF-105. You might make a case for the CF-100 & the CF-103 (which IMO deserves a page), tho. Or you might try knowing what you're talking about. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Trek, I think you mean Avro Canada CF-103. Same country, different company. :) - BilCat (talk) 06:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I do, thx. (I keep forgetting they went by Avro Canada...) Major Maple Leaf ^{where's my shield*?} 15:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Canberra B-101 entry

Hi BillC, wish you're doing well. Just reinstated entry of preserved Canberra Mk 62 B-101 which has been extensively restored as shown in the source cited in the article. Please don't remove it again. Thanks and regards, DPdH (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@DPdH: My apologies, I figured out what happened, and the removal was unintentional. There was an edit conflict while I was working on the Operators section, and I thought I had restored all your changes before saving my version. I'll be more careful next time. - BilCat (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

No problem, I thought this would have been the case, as we had collaborated well in the past. Thanks for the explanation, and have a nice day. DPdH (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

So

Do you mind at least telling me why you reverted my redirect of missile launcher to missile and back to rocket launcher (rockets and missiles are different weapons). Because from where I stand, my edit was justified and you're the one with no good reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Converting to insanity (talk • contribs) 08:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Because the article is about both rocket and missile launchers. As far launching is concerned, rockets and missiles aren't much different. It's what happens after launching that differentiates the two. - BilCat (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Why the revert on Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II?

Why did you revert my edit showing that Northrop Grumman now makes the A-10? I cited my sources showing that Grumman bought out the A-10 rights. Jesse Viviano (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jesse Viviano: Because there are no A-10s being made now, as production ended in 1984. Also, Grumman's purchase of the A-10 support rights is already adequately covered in HOG UP and Wing Replacement Program section. - BilCat (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Removing tags

Thanks for your note on removing tags in articles, without discussion. I thought the tags in question were deliberately and maliciously placed in order to disrupt the article, but you're quite right: discussion should precede emotional counter-edits. So I've opened a discussion on the SS100 Talk Page to try and clean up this kind of brain-dead, pointless editing by know-it-all nitwits who appear in Wikipedia from time to time. Thanks for the gentle nudge toward correctness :-) Santamoly (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Of bicycle chains and guns...

• Old friend, mind helping me take a look at this? FWIW, I did what I could with my limited time, so do help it out a bit, yeah? Cheers~! PS: TPSs, you guys are welcome too. Cheers, again~!! -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The Widgeon

My apologies, I was unaware that the Widgeon had a radial conversion. Aircates (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

No worries. - BilCat (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

redirection help

Hey Bill, I've made a opsssee trying to redirect the Comoros Air Force page to go the Military of the Comoros, but ended up sending it here Wikipedia:Military of the Comoros do you know how to reverse or put it in the proper redirect. Both the Air force & Military pages were duplicates of each other. Thanks FOX 52 (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@FOX 52: I've moved it back to Comoros Air Force and left a redirect there. As a Page Mover, I was able to delete Wikipedia:Military of the Comoros. The original content is still in the CAF history. Does that fix everything? - BilCat (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes - many thanks sir, very much appreciated - FOX 52 (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You're most welcome. - BilCat (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Ship/dab

Hi, I have a question that I believe your experience may help answer. I was seeking to add the hull code to a new USN ship that has a similar name to another USN ship, (please see Talk:USS George M. Neal). I know that back in 2015 or so there some discussion about this and as a result, ships with unique names had their hull codes removed (eg: USS Carl Vinson CVN-70 → USS Carl Vinson). For this request, I noted WP:SHIPDAB, but I wanted to ask if you knew of any other guidelines that may apply. I have a feeling I'm missing one. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks - wolf 12:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I support including the hull codes for all USN ships regardless of whether it's needed for disambiguation. Always have, always will. - BilCat (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

F35

What proof there can be that a fake new is fake news? One journalist wrote in the newspaper that Polish government is considering procurement of second hand fighter, and this information landed at Wikipedia. There is no such option considered in Poland. Official statement of Polish MoD is that Poland will buy 5th generation aircraft. There is no second hand 5th gen aircraft available anywhere in the world. Matrek (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

You need to discuss that on the article's talk page. - BilCat (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Sepecat Jaguar

Please edit the specifications template Wikijnan (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Wikijnan: Why? What's the problem? - BilCat (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Reply about Scotch-Irish Americans article edit

Thanks for the welcome message. I do not think I am attempting to experiment with the wiki's syntax (I'm not entirely sure what that even means). I was attempting to correct a factual error in an article summary section. (The terminology section of the Scotch-Irish Americans article does not state that the Scotch-Irish are only descended from Ulster Scots and Anglo-Irish Protestant Dissenters but from Ulster Protestants more generally, as the Protestants who migrated to Ulster were also French Huguenots, German Palatines, as well as Protestant refugees from Flanders.) I don't want to revert and create an edit war; I just want to correct the information in the summary of the article as stated in the later section of the article itself. - CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@CommonKnowledgeCreator: Your edit summary was incomplete and a little misleading. Put as much of an explanation as you can in your edit summaries, and that will help others know why you make your edits. As to the syntax part, it's part of the welcome template, but we only have so many, and they don't always fit the exact situation. I'll try to explain better myself next time. - BilCat (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

“American” in airliner intros

Hi! You reverted my removal of “American” (the demonym, not the airline) from the 787 article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/878212482 I did it because IMHO it’s redundant, since Boeing is an American company. You reverted it and admonished that it’s “usual” to include it. Actually, before I made the edit, I chose a few Boeing aircraft articles at random and found they did not include “American”, either, so I thought I was actually **improving** consistency. Of current Boeing models, just the 747 (and 787, again) articles do. The rest do not say “American”. (Among obsolete models, some do, some don’t, and some say “United States”.) Anyway, I don’t care enough to get into an edit war, but perhaps consider looking at the articles as a whole and deciding on a consistent inclusion or omission. Regards, tooki (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Scaled Composites Stratolaunch

Hi, you just reverted my adding of File:Stratolaunch comparison.svg to Scaled Composites Stratolaunch. I am not 100% percent sure what the problem was (I assume the image uses an upscaled version of the White Knight 2), but I just wanted to inform you that I had found that image illustrating Stratolaunch_Systems#Carrier_aircraft. So, if the image is not suited for Scaled Composites Stratolaunch, I assume it is also not suited for Stratolaunch_Systems#Carrier_aircraft. Spike (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

he is harassing me

he is now harassing me on simple english and german wikipedia.Alhanuty (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

An admin is looking into it. - BilCat (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

£5 note revision

Hey, I was just hoping to get some info on why you reverted my edit on the Space Shuttle page when I added the informaton about the Northern Ireland £5 note having the shuttle on the reverse. Looking at WP:POPCULTURE, I figured it met sufficient criteria in that it was related to an event (the Millenium) and referenced the Space Shuttle (instead of spacecraft in general). After seeing your revision, I checked the talk page archives to make sure there wasn't a history of it being removed, and couldn't find anything. You're a much more experienced editor than I am, so I would like to get some guidance on why it shouldn't be included, so that I don't make a similar mistake in the future. Thanks in advance! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

F-35 article (Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II)

BilCat, where would you rather discuss, here or on the article's talk page? 2 points: (1) Where in the source do you see the UK elevated above the others on the list? I did indeed check the source, as I noted in my comment, and I did not read anything like that. I might have missed it. (2) If your understanding is correct, then the sentence STILL needs to be changed. It makes no grammatical sense as it is written (or, at least, it is a great example of ambiguity). It would have to change to something like this: "While the United States is the primary customer and financial backer—along with the United Kingdom—Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway, and Denmark have agreed to contribute US$4.375 billion . . . ." Thanks! Holy (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@HolyT: The article's talk page would be best. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@BilCat: OK, I'll copy this on the talk page when I'm back tomorrow. Holy (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

FYI: The map and caption in Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement that lists the 3 main levels (Primary, Levels 1 to 3, and Security Cooperative Participants). There are refs there such as this archive page which shows these levels. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Airbus A³ Vahana

Why did you start a discussion an then you refused to discuss? --Leo067 (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I've been ill. I'll be online sporadically for a few days. - BilCat (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Hope you are doing better now! - Ahunt (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Orange bar

Hello. I noticed on your talk page on the top that it says you miss the old orange bar. Have you tried adding this script shown on this page?: User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar If you copy and paste it according to the instructions, you can get that orange bar back every time you have a talk page message. If you already have it, great! Have a great night BilCat, just wanted to help you out some. :) DrewieStewie (talk) 06:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Corn / Maize redirects

I appreciate the point, but the issue goes wider. The "Corn" page should really be a disambiguation page, as it means different things in different contexts and forms of English - it is only in North American English that the word 'corn' has come to mean just maize (or 'sweetcorn' as we usually call it this side of the ocean), and even in North America it is a relatively recent development of the language, just a hundred years or so. The plain redirect of "corn" to "maize" has led to some bizarre results: articles referring to the corn trade in Britain or the Roman Empire refer principally to wheat but take the reader to the New World crop! I have done "corn" ==> "cereal" where appropriate too. Proposals have been made for making "Corn" a disambiguation page, as it ought to be, but this falls down on the number of articles in which it is used for one sort of cereal or another. Therefore the appearance of the term 'corn' should be clarified in as many articles as possible, in order that we can in due course revisit / reconsider making it a disambiguation page. Hogweard (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Hogweard: I am aware of the issues, but as long as Maize is considered the primary topic for corn, there's no need to change it. If that ever.changes, then it would be appropriate to change the redirects. Again, please stop. - BilCat (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The changes I made may have been arguably unnecessary while 'corn' remains a redirect, but they did not change the text nor did they harm any of the articles, so I fail to see why there was any benefit in reversing them. The benefit in their remaining is that it enables a slow disambiguation of various references to corn. In articles written in American English, the word 'corn' is used to mean 'maize', and I did not change the word that appears. In others there is ambiguity: under Canadian whisky, when is says corn' does it mean wheat, as whisky is made using fermented wheat mash, or does it mean that it is flavoured with sweetcorn? When discussing European or Asian cultures, which is meant? A redirect does not do the job. Had my amendments changed the meaning, redirected to a wrong location or even changed the text at all in an American-English article, fair enough, but otherwise I can see no value in reversing my changes. Hogweard (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are welcome sir.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Thank you. - BilCat (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thanks for the clarification...thankfully, I'd already made the change on the "more appropriate page" for the Wright R-2600 Twin Cyclone engine page itself about BOTH the Curtiss C-46 Commando and Grumman F6F Hellcat getting the switch to the Double Wasp radial. (The goat is for your steadfastness about making the change on the Twin Cyclone page ONLY...it's just a good thing I remembered about the Twin Cyclone article-edit itself a very short while ago}.

The PIPE (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I always wanted to be the Greatest Of All Time. :) - BilCat (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)