User talk:BilCat

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of December 26, 2011.

Blue Thunder (film) and Talk:Blue Thunder

Hi B, check the talk page out, I don't know enough about the film or the links mentioned but it seemed to be a drastic cut of nearly all the external links. Aren't some of them useful? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC).

Oh dear! And I love how he assumes so much good faith! Not! ;) His best line? "Nothing much beyond what's in the article, except a bunch of pictures..." Uh yeah, those pics are probally why the links were there in the first place. Duh. It's stupidity like this that keeps me retired. - BilCat (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Note to BushRanger

It's quite ironic to see people complain when one supposedly doesn't show good faith, then when you do assume good faith on their part, they take pride in telling you that you were wrong to have done so! :) - BilCat (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Remember the whatever-the-nee "garbage truck"? Similar style of behavioural issues, wasting the community's time and patience but yet allowed to free roam because they have refine WP:CPUSH into a delicate art form. That, I have to hand it to them and their enablers. Just hope that they are happy that I've forgiven them, amen! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

NEWSY/UNDUE Hcobb

• For the donkey times, see how Hcobb got a bruising at Talk:CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder#Richard Aboulafia. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Again, the shameless one has taken the credit from other people. FWIW, to puncture the skin of an elephant... we need an elephant gun and I'm really itching to send him to WP:Requests for comment/User conduct. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The elephant gun would probably be more effective! Or, you could troll the Chinese sources for a rebuttal.  :) BilCat (talk) 05:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Trust me, he doesn't want to open the pandora box... being swamped by the avalanche of replies, he'll be reeling from his squealing and oinking from the boinking~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I know what you did...

• You were having fun with your iPad, right~? No worries, just keep lurking like I do... --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Kindle Fire, actually - I can't afford an iPad! (I'm not into the Applesphere anyway.) The K-Fire has a 7-inch screen, which makes it easy to accidentally hit the wrong link. - BilCat (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that explains this as well? It had me wondering whether your account had been hacked ;) I hope that all's well with you Bill, and it's nice to see you dropping in occasionally. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup! :) And thanks. - BilCat (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Nick, looks like you kicked up a hornet's nest somewhere. :) - BilCat (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

edit war

BRD has no mechanism to deal with disagreement. Also, something the group of editors tendentiously promoting the view that any reference to the S-70 in the article must be obfuscated with weasel words to protect the innocent reader from thinking that the two helicopters might be similar in any way you're in need to understand is that when someone declares a war and nobody else comes there's no war. Each one of you tendentious editors is edit warring just as hard as I am.TeeTylerToe (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't claim BRD here, although if you'd follow its advice, you would not be in danger of violating 3RR, as you've done before, and are in danger of doing again. As for mechanisms for dealing with disagreements, you've availed yourself of several options, and have still not changed the consensus. Contininuing to make the same changes against consensus is edit warring, so stop. - BilCat (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - BilCat (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)" If I followed BRD it would short circuit at compromise because your group of tendentious editors are sticking your heads in the sand refusing to admit any non weasel worded link between the s-76 and the s-70. You BilCat are not "in danger" of edit warring or tendentious editing, you are edit warring and editing tendentiously.

What mechanism have I availed myself of that has brought any unbiased 3rd party? The s-76 entry in the dispute page is about 4 from the top, behind some disputes that have gone on for longer than 16 days.TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Then wait for an "unbiased 3rd party" to comment, even if that means the "wrong" version of the articles remains for some time. The real problem is that you haven't presented reliable sources to support your current claims. Keep looking, for there are many archives of published reliable aviation sources on the internet. (The Sikorsky archive doesn't appear to meet WP:RS at this time.) If you find such sources, present them, and I'll support adding info based on those sources to the article, as will most of the editors involved. But don't just jump right it and add the information yourself - that is what is getting you in trouble here. - BilCat (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Support for what? Support for the fact that the main differences between the mechanical aspects of the s-76 and s-70 are the rotor diameter and, although nobody in your cabal of tendentious editors can find any reference to support it, possibly a weaker version of the same main rotor gearbox? Yes. At various times I believe I have provided 5 references to that effect. Most of the new design section in the article is information about design details copied from the s-70 that I added to the article that members of your cabal warred for days to keep out, yet the same page that provides reference for the design section clearly states (not that your cabal hasn't argued the point) that the s-76 and the s-70 share those features. But the s-76 sharing features with the s-70 is a statement forbidden from being added to the article, or any other suggestion that the s-70 is anything more than a vague concept inspiration.TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you are angry, but continuing to bandy about words like "cabal of tendentious editors" isn't going to win you any support, and will probably ensure that no one bothers to read what you write; even if they might meat your definition of "unbiased", your anger will probably ensure they just move on and leave you to your fate. (Accusing me of edit warring when I haven't certainly doesn't help your case with me. "Tenditious" is an opinion, so you're welcome to it, but again it doesn't help you any.) As to the particulars, those should be dealt with at the S-76 talk page. You h=say you have 5 relaible sources which support you points, so present them there in one place, and I'll look them over. BilCat (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Like proving that the transmissions would have won me support? Like proving that they shared the same type certifications would have won me support? Like doing anything that would have won me support? My anger? Members of your tendentious cabal have been throwing such talk around for over a week. They can't end a sentence without saying how I'm a tendentious edit warrior that's going to get himself blocked, while they're perfectly innocent little cherubs looking down from the high ground.

Again, what? Prove that they have the same design of 5 piece modular transmission that has two interchangeable input pieces and two interchangeable accessory pieces, and a three stage design that replaces Sikorsky's old transmission design that used two planetary gearboxes with a single planetary gearbox, replacing one of the planetary gearboxes with a bull gear, though members of your tendentious cabal claim without any reference that, like a wet disc transmission, there may be a difference in the torque rating? That the one piece forged main rotor head is a feature shared between the two, that they both use elastometric main rotor bearings, that the blades share the same composition and airfoil curves, and that they both share a bearingless tail rotor. That the biggest differences between the two helicopters mechanically are the difference in the rotor diameters, the engines, and, the baseless theory that there are minor differences in the transmission? What if I did?TeeTylerToe (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)