User talk:BilCat

Unified login: BilCat is the unique login of this user for all public Wikimedia projects.

NOTES

• Due to the misbehavior of a few IPs, IPs are sometimes prevented from editing this page. If you need to discuss an article, see the previous note. If you need to discuss something else with me, register, and come back in four days. If it's urgent, use the e-mail feature; it won't work if it's been abused lately. If you chose to whine on an admin complaint board somewhere, I'll probably hear about it. And ignore you. ;) PS. if you posted the type of comments on my page that you would post on an admin alert board, they would have been ignored and removed anyway!

• Most comments will be archived about once a month. Critical comments are welcome, but those containing highly-offensive or profane material will be deleted immediately, and the overall content ignored.

• NO BOTS ALLOWED!! You'll have post here yourself!

• Also, talk to me like a normal person, and don't just quote Wiki guidelines to me - I'm NOT a newbie . (Policies are somewhat different). I consider it rude, and will likely just delete your comments, and ignore the point, as guidleines can be ignored. If you do it anyway, and turn out to be wrong, an apology would be the considerate thing to make, though you probably won't since it's not policy to apologize for your mistakes. (If Jimbo wnated people to apologize for their mistakes, he'd have made it a policy, right?!)

• If you want me to take your opinions and edits seriously, you ought to Register!. Otherwise one never knows who really made the edits, especially in the case of dynamic IP addresses.

• If I mistakenly called your edits as vandalism when I reverted them, it was probably because you did not leave an edit summary. Please realize that, in many cases, unexplained edits are indistinguishable from vandalism! This also applies to Rollbacks.

• I reserve the right to clean up this page in any manner I chose, including the use of Rollbacks for non-vandalism, and especially if you made more than one edit. Please do NOT repost what I've removed, unless you are an admin issuing a formal warning, though I'll probably still remove it!

• If you wish to keep a matter confidential,such as disscussing personal and/or confidential information, you may use the "E-mail" feature (usually activated!). I will respond in kind unless otherwise requested. This is not for discussing routine matters regarding editing on pages - use the article talk pages for that.

Thanks.

• Title Case May Be Used in Headings on This Page

• Me, myself, and I use serial commas.

Barnstar

		Wikiwings
		I award you these Wikiwings with Anti-vandalism barnstar device! The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar For thousands of hours, reverts, rollbacks, and cleanups on aisle 12, your thankless efforts are no longer unrecognized. We're just sorry that we only had enough money in the budget for this. --Born2flie (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much! I know how much time I spend on the task, but I wonder if anyone has ever figured out how much of a load vandalism and its removal puts on the WIki-servers? Perhaps this is a way to force the Big Jimbo to finally rethink his "non-negotiable" stance on open editing. - BilCat (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

V

A review from the magazine Slate noted that journalists and bloggers have seen V as an anti-Obama allegory.[14] In response, executive producer Scott Peters maintained, "We are not looking to put any sort of agenda onto the table."

I thought that this was a very fair edit, considering your declared biases. Kudos.

Thanks. That's what neutrality is articles is supposed to mean. Sometimes it takes some wrangling to achieve, but that is one of the benifits of coopertive editing. - BilCat (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Not that it did any good! Other than the words in the script, the Visitors are still very much like those in the originals with Fascist tendencies. Perhaps those trying to contrive a controversy need to analyze why a fascist regime reminds them so much of Obama! ANyway, all this is based on one episode, whose script was written some time ago. The other scripts were still written eariler this year, and we have yet to see how thay play out. A police state is being set up in the story, and the parallels to the Bush Administration's anti-terrorism policies ware wide open. Will these same critics protest if such parallels can be drawn? Somehow, I greatly doubt it! Of couse, if the show depicts schoolchildren singing "Anna, Anna, Anna! Hmmm, hmmm, hmmm!" then I'll admit the show is clearly going after Obama! - BilCat (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm done there. It's sad when people don't even recognize there own biases, but are so intent at pointing oout the biases of others. For persoanl rasons, I don't have the time or energy to fight with page owners today. - BilCat (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yea, the head is not good at damaging walls. Hope you feel better soon, Bill. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Silhouettes

Evening BilCat. A little while ago you left me a note on silhouettes, suggesting they should not be thumbs, but sized at 300px. 300px is fine, but how to do this with a caption? I could use thumb with a forced 300px, or (I think) frame with 300px. Is there a preference or alternative? Certainly Image:xxxx.jpg|right|300px|Caption does not produce the caption. A caption is often vital with the silhouette in the specs section, for the latter may specify a Foo Mk.XX, whereas the silhouette is a Mk. XVI. Any thoughts?TSRL (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Break

Hope you are feeling better soon! - Ahunt (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam. I'm feeling a little better. However, I'm fed up with WP - too much like herding cats! - BilCat (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I can understand that sentiment! - Ahunt (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see you are back, even in a limited capacity! - Ahunt (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Let me know if you need help with something. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much! I'm feeling better, and the wiki-withdrawals were too high! I hd to delete my watchlist to enforce my break, but I lost my backup list. Would y'all mind sending me your raw watchlists (plain text)? Feel free to edit out anything you don't want me to see, but it would help me get caught back up on most of the WP:AIR pages I watch. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, here are most of my watchlist (hidden text):

Delete this when done, I guess. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I imagine you have a good watchlist built up by now. Let me know if you need help with articles or such. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm back over 6000 now, with about 2000 left to recover from my contributions list. Alss, I've just about cleaned out all your rock band articles from my list! ;) Thanks to both of you for the head-start. - BilCat (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

A330

I agree with the sentiment of not changing between versions of English in Airbus A330. Not sure whether this was a british/international thing I went to the BBC website and searched for an airline story. They use singular for an article about Emirates Airline - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7175527.stm. I'll leave up to you but think the BBC is a pretty good guide as to what's normal in british english.

removal of sourced addition to Sleeping while on duty

Why is it that you think that the recent addition to Sleeping while on duty should be removed? Please discuss it thoroughly before removing. Hellno2 (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's just WP:TRIVIA - I'm sure the meetings are recorded anyway, in case he missed an important discussion. See Talk:Sleeping while on duty#Trivia. - BilCat (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A380 origins

Not discussing this here, per my above notes. My edits are in line with the Template:Infobox Aircraft Type guidelines. See WP:MOSFLAG for the general guidelines against flags. If you have specific issues withthe infobox itself, then take them up on the template's talk page. For specifics on using it on the A380 page, it's talk page would be best. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sikorsky S-52

Bill, judging by the shape Sikorsky S-52 is in now, you may want to switch User:BilCat/Sandbox/Sikorsky S-52 to something else or delete. Just a thought. Take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2009 (U

F-22 Raptor image

Why can't I change the lead image on that article to a ACTUAL image? -Brainiack16

Cause you are making a mess, and because it is an actual image. - BilCat (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Point made

You have made your point, but you would have done better to have brought it up on my talk page. -- allen四names 03:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It would not have been printable! - BilCat (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox title lines

Noticed your recent changes on infobox title - Interestingly I have always assumed that model numbers meant anything that didnt have a name like Douglas DC-3 would be shown as Douglas DC-3 and not DC-3, but the Bloggs F-22 Foofighter would just be Foofighter. Obvious more that one meaning to model numbers! No big deal but if it is not clear perhaps we need to get a new consensus. Also need to add the bit about more users for current types being based on fleet size not national pride, refer Douglas DC-10 edits today! MilborneOne (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The previous discussions should make clear what was meant by "model number". The notes should be clarified to make it clear. I'm fine with new duscussions on the issue, as I'll raise allowing the manufactuer'sname in almost all cases. - BilCat (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I dont see why it cant be the same as the article title but sometimes the article title is a common name and a fuller designation could exist. I dont have a problem with manufacturers name in the infobox title. Its time to log off this side of the atlantic now so I might raise it at wp:aircaft if you havent done so when I come back on tomorrow. MilborneOne (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Electric Boat

Hello BilCat, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Electric Boat - a page you tagged - because: There's a (minimal) discussion on the talk page about moving to GD electric boat. This request can't be uncontroversial therefore. Gain consensus for the move first. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. GedUK  19:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I figured that, but wanted to try anyway. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

INS Viraat

Bill, just looking at Indian Navy and as allways pretty suspicious of any images from India/Pakistan being copy vios. Not an expert on ships but this looks like a copyvio File:Vizagstrategic.jpg, it is I believe INS Viraat but I cant find the original. Looks like an official Indian or US Navy shot. If you come across it then please let me know. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. If it's a USN photo, it's most likely PD, but that has to be proven, of course. - BilCat (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

F-16 Fighting Falcon

Thanks for tweaking the wording. Long words with specific meanings are great, as long as the meaning is actually appropriate. SeanWillard (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Bristol Fairchild Bolingbroke edits

The Bolingbroke Mk IV did mount a different turret with twin Browning machine guns in some of the production run, so the edits have to be somewhat adjusted. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC).

USAF Thunderbirds

BilCat,

I appreciate your diligence and willingness to make WP the most accurate source of information possible. At first I was irritated that the time I took to edit the USAF Thunderbirds page was completely wasted when you removed it. However, after doing a bit of research on Wikipedia itself, and checking out your avilable information, I can appreciate why you made the changes you did. However, I think the information I added to the page regarding the roster and schedule were valuable details that readers will find useful. I was hoping we could meet in the middle. I am open to suggestions about placement, external links, or other possibilities. I hope your health problems are on the mend and that I hear from you soon.

TBirdpaTbirdpa (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! I totally forgot about this! I'll try to get to this today or tomorrow. Thanks for the kind words, as i do appreciate anyone who takes the time to examine my record. - BilCat (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

MQ-9 Reaper

I provided source material (Wing Commander article) and as an MQ-9 operator I have first-hand knowledge of the subject. Such first-hand references trump secondary sources (i.e. the "aviation media"). It doesn't get much stronger than that and, in my humble opinion, a "consensus" isn't required.

I did post in the discussion for the MQ-9 page, but I'd really appreciate if you'd stop undoing my changes. I'm adding to the subject, not taking anything away from it.

I posted my 3 cents' worth on the talk page: essentially, they're synonyms. Basically, the USAF is pushing the status quo ante - attempting to return to the term it rejected as old-fashioned - because it's actually a more accurate term. However, the USAF successfully got the whole world to accept UAV. Whether it will have similar success with restoring general usage of RPV - or predominantly fails, as with UAS - remains to be seen. Anyhow, I have posted a suggestion for discussion. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark, and good point on the edit-warring - I'm too stubborn sometimes! Anyway, I sort of get the impression the return to RPV might be politically motivated - see MQ-9 Reaper#Controversy for complaints by a UN weenie about "so-called predator" (his words) killings. Just a hunch, but since the Obamunists took over, the military is doing some strange things! - BilCat (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen the USAF use the RPV terminology, but have not been looking either. I bet it is related to putting more attention on the controllers, to help with recruiting. They have been training some non-rated pilots to be controllers for the last year or two to help fill spots. Sorry, I checked the MQ-9 talk page after posting that, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette_alerts

The IP user has tried to inform you about Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Continuous_Personal_Attacks_by_User:BilCat. MilborneOne (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I do believe now he is engaging in trollish behavior. I note the first 2 difss he gave I said vandalism, meaning the edits, not the user, and "apparent vandalism", showing good faith. Does he emtnion that, or my mention of his incivility? Of course not! Sorry to have involved you in this. - BilCat (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem not sure raising it two forums helps sort out the issues. MilborneOne (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully, a bot closed this "discussion" a couple of days ago. The wiki-troll seems to have moved on also. By the way, I've seen examples of botsadding line spaces to srticles lately, leaving two spaces between sections. So there is a way to do this without breaking the style sheets! - BilCat (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

El Salvador Language

Sorry for for stating, and writting down that English is one of El Salvadors official languages, I should of checked if there was a reference first. Sorry about that. House1090 (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It does seem to be require in schools from at least the middle school level on, but I couldn't fine anything eles on an official status. That doesn't mean it is not an official language, but it does not appear to be primary language. - BilCat (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yea I am looking for information on that. English is required from I believe 3 grade or something, but yea like you said, its not a primary language wide spoken like spanish. House1090 (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Engines page re-shuffle

Hi Bill, are you happy with my suggestion on task force organisation at WT:AETF? Just want to make sure that everyone is happy before I do anything, there is nothing drastic involved! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Freighters at airport

Bill, I've been seeing a An-124 at the Huntsville airport lately. It was parked near the intermodal freight building there today. There's been a 747-400 there at different times also. I can't readily get a good view at either due to surrounding buildings though. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds cool! Seriously. I just read tht piece on the "cut-and-shut" Chinook in Afghanistan. I kept expecting to hear the man's son had died in the crash of the helicopter, as much fuss as he was making. He seems to be reacting soley to the buzz words "cut-and-shut", and basing his reactionos on his own definition of what that term means, not reality. I've never heard the term myself, so I don't know what connotations that might have to the Brits. - BilCat (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I never did get a solid reason for complaining about that rebuilt Chinook. Seemed like a good recycling/money saving effort. The An-124 has a different look with the high wing with them sloping down slightly toward the tips. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

<lurk off>I suspect the Chinook issue is just a matter of language, cut and shut is a dodgy practice in the motor trade when crashed cars are repaired by welding two together, it is not really relevant to aircraft but to a father who has lost his son one can only imagine the need to find causes and blame for their sad loss. Some images of the accident to ZA704 are at http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/chinook/aft_pylon_removal.html so it was badly damaged but far from a complete wreck.<lurk on> MilborneOne (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. We call tha "clipping" on our side of the pond. My dad is in the used auto parts buisness, and hes has had a number of wrecked cars rebuilt, and then the family drives them. Our stste requires inspection on all rebuilt cars, and they are fairly strict - all the welds are inspected, etc. If done right, it can save thousands of dollars. I've driven cars with front ends, rear ends, and sides taken from other cars, with no difficulties. If my dad and the people he contracts to do much of the body work can do a good job, I'm sure the RAF can too! The US military has does the same thing, most notably the A-12/SR-71 and FrankenProwler/-Hornets that Jeff has mentioned. It's really not that uncommon, and it does save money. That's something the UK MOZD is quite short of right now, and its said to see that a proven method of reclamation might be stopped because of a grief-stricken parent. - BilCat (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sikorsky S-53

Just created Sikorsky S-53 but it is really the Sikorsky XHJS-1 in mil terms so should probably be moved to the mil designation. Very little info on it so any help appreciated. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look, and check my sources later today. - BilCat (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A320

Hi BilCat, I have problems to understand your argumentation here. The image you prefer was taken with a strange angle (the plane would have to be lower to make it look better), furthermore it shows only one member of the A320 family. Isn't it better to have as many members as possible on the first picture of the article? I don't know any picture showing all four members, but this one shows at least three of them. Furthermore, the aircraft shown in the image are anything but too small, I am sorry to have to say that. I am looking forward to your clarification, Anesinan (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

They still aren't in flight, which is preferred for the Lead image. I have no problem with the image being elsewhere in the article, but I couldn't find a place for it at the time. - BilCat (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You can look for further discussions on my talk page. Thanks, Anesinan (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I see you've bailed on the discussion, and on WP. We never used the terms law or policy for a reason, but stsaed that a flying image is "preferred". If the consensus is to keep a non-flying image, it can be used in the Lead. However, 3 users have disagreeded with you to this point, mening the consensus now is against changing the image to a non-flying one. None of the 3 have stated that the current image can't be replaced by another in-flight image, though I do like the current one. - BilCat (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The user's airport image is a good image for showing 3 of the main variants, but is not fitting for Infobox. Looks like the user could not have his/her way and is taking the ball and going home. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

CFM56 A-Class Review

Hey Bill-- If you have a few minutes sometime I would appreciate it if you could take a look at the CFM56 A-Class review and leave some comments. There aren't too many engine people around, and I would appreciate a knowledgeable opinion. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Turn on the autopilot, Luke

A question about this: isn't the parent org in question singular? (I'm not deeply concerned either way; I'm just not sure enough about this to rv it.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In this case, the parent organization was the US Army. The article is at United States Army Air Forces - it may give enough background to explain it, but I'm not sure. Thanks for sking first! - BilCat (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ears?

Something interesting just came up, wanna come over and chat? --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 05:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Joke of the day

Bill, please take a look at this and then tell me the joke, if you catch it. --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 08:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the paragraph with the use of 'developed'. Using 'refilling' there seems strange as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. It looks just like a Il-76/78 (note the tail gunner's station), which is what India currently uses for Inflight refueling. Perhaps it's a re-touched image of an Indian plane. Anyway, change the location/country to India, and the piece reads just like it might in the Times of India - the "mainstream" press in both countries can be very patriotic, and vauge when it comes to military info. Mainstream American and British press treat it as a sin to be patriotic (while also being against sin as a concept!)), and often read like they were published by the old Soviet Union! It's all quite strange. How odd it must be to have media that actually like the country they live in! - BilCat (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• I do note that the spelled the plural of "aircraft" without an "S", which is rare for Pakistani media. Even the PAF website often uses "aircrafts"! - BilCat (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry CHRISTmas

File:Christmas Barnstar (aviation).jpg

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

Thanks much, and Merry Cristmas to y'all! - BilCat (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Dab redlinks

Do you have expert knowledge in taxonomy? If not, please do not mess with issues you do not understand sufficiently, and restore those redlinks. We need them to prevent non-disambiguous disambiguation names such as Erica (genus), which is what novice users will create en masse if we do not tell them otherwise. The general MoS has no bearing on this issue; the codes of biological nomenclature are mandatory for enyclopedic works such as Wikipedia and homonymy cannot be tolerated, just as some statute in the general MoS is to be disregarded if it breaks the law in some particular case.

Alternatively, please read the codes of nomenclature (4 books of some size each) so that you understand the issue and can help to clean up the thousands of articles that have wrong names already, and patrol those tens of thousands of articles that will get wrong names eventually.

If you want to do that, you're welcome to remove the redlinks; otherwise restore them please. Thanks. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've read the WP MOS, and that's all I'm required to read. WP is self governing, and ousidie of copyright laws, nothing else applies. Sorry. - BilCat (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As to your motive of "what novice users will create en masse if we do not tell them otherwise": How does creating a redlink on a totally unrelated article prevent the creation of one at as different title? In the Aircraft Project, we regularly find created articles that are redundant to existing articles; sometimes they only differ in punctuation or spacing in the designation. The only way to stop an article being created at a different title is to salt it to prevent it's creation. However, a creative novice user will often just create it at as similar, though more incorrect, title! What I'd recommend is watchlisting the likely titles, and then moving them to the correct titles when they are created. That's really about all that you can reasonably do on an encyclopedia that anyone can edit - and they often do! - BilCat (talk) 01:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles of Confederation

Why would you undo my change? It was the first time in the article that the United States Constitution was mentioned, and there's no useful reason to abbreviate it.—Cleared as filed. 01:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Because "United States" is already mentioned 5 times - that seemed like enough. - BilCat (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 331 and location of the accident on oceanfront

Hi there, you reversed my correction that the aircraft came to rest oceanside, not harborside. The approach was from over the harbour, not the ocean, on RWY 12. Kindly take a gander at Google Earth or Wikimapia or just click on the coordinates link and explode the view. You will see that the RWY ends oceanside on the ILS approach, not on Kingston Harbour. The airport is peculiarly located on a strip of land that separates the Harbour from the ocean. --Mareklug ^talk 21:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever been to the airport? The airplane would have had to cross a road to stop near the "ocean". I've added sources to the article from the airport's website that the airport is "adjacent to the harbour. I'll look at the maps anyway. - BilCat (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Butterflies

Thanks - I've left a little note on his talkpage. We'll see how it goes from there. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft Carrier

On the page Aircraft Carrier, you reverted my edits because "LHAs and LHDs are NOT considered aircraft carries." On the same page where it lists types of aircraft carriers one of the types listed is "Amphibious assault ship." Also, why should the Japanese helicopter destroyers be listed but not USN Amphibious assault ships? The USN Wasp class amphibious assault ship carries ten-twenty more aircraft than the Japanese helicopter destroyers do, so they obviously have enough aircraft to be counted as an aircraft carrier. It seems very illogical to not include the Wasp/Tarawa class Amphibious assault ships in the list of aircraft carriers— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.201.35 (talk)

By the US Navy. - BilCat (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Langley Flying School‎

I see you have been trying to improve this article, but it is currently locked until 03 Jan 10. I left some ideas at Talk:Langley Flying School‎ and will help out fixing it up when it becomes unlocked. - Ahunt (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As it seems that I got you into this particular little mess (for which I apologise), I will also spend some time on fixing it, although I now think I should have gone with my initial instinct and just nominated it for deletion. YSSYguy (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I like messes! - BilCat (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Our Edit Wars

The usual pattern is that I'll make some outrageous edit and you'll revert it and then I'll pull out some strange ref to back it up and then you'll edit my edit to miss the entire point. So it's standard wiki-practice AFAIK.  ;-) Hcobb (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Because your point is usually irrelevant to a general encyclopedia article. Too much news, not enough relevant info. Have you considered Wikinews? I've never edited on it, but you might find it useful. Seriously. If you like breaking news and quotes, it might be worth checking out. - BilCat (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

NORAD

Bill, Thank you for watching and cleaning up the extraneous stuff in the NORAD article. I take a few days off to visit relatives in the Nebraska panhandle and two blizzards hit!... the snow blizzard that hit the farm on Christmas Day and the 'blizard' on NORAD. Hope you had a good Christmas.I'm sure there will be much more next year. Have a Happy New Year!... Lance. LanceBarber (talk) 06:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I used to watch that aticle awhile back and just gave up. After seeing the orginal section in the history that the POVers had removed/changed, They actually took out legitimate, worthwhile, and cited information to put in their crap! I decided to tackle the article again, as this sort of warped POV should not be allowed to stand. If they show up again, I'm going hunting for some admins I trust to back up WP policies. (And I'll try not to edit war first - I'm learning my lesson, Nick-D!) It's good to see you active again, at least on articles we have in common. Have a Happy New Year too. - BilCat (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Question about the correct designations for older Lockheed aircraft.

The titles of the three articles Lockheed L-10 Electra, Lockheed L-12 Electra Junior, and Lockheed L-14 Super Electra all use the form L-n for the designation, with the Model n form (e.g. Lockheed Model 10 Electra) as a redirect. You made these changes about two and a half years ago.

However, while reading various contemporary documents concerning these aircraft, such as type certificate data sheets, accident reports, and old articles in Flight, I have always seen them designated as either Model n, Type-name n, or sometimes just Lockheed n (e.g. Model 12A, Electra Junior 12A, or Lockheed 12A). I have never seen the L-n form in such documents; it seems to be a newer practice, done for consistency with later Lockheeds like the L-188 Electra. (For example, the L-n form doesn't show up in Flight until 1958.) Lockheed's own website uses the Model n form when discussing these older planes.

What was your basis for choosing L-n as the correct form? Would you consider the possibility of changing it to Model n?

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's the consensus of WP:AIR to use the L- format. I'll try to find the discussion, and send you a link to it. - BilCat (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'd appreciate it. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Question about your edits of DHC-2 entry

"Removed non-notable additions added by Keepitreal74 - uh, exactly" - I'm not sure what you mean by "uh, exactly" and why would you remove the reference to the latest accident up north? thank you for all your contributions and I hope you feel better soon. Keepitreal74 (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)