User talk:BilCat

NOT RETIRED

This user is somewhat active on Wikipedia, and limits his activities to a small range of pages and mostly non-contentious discussions. There may be periods in which the user is not active due to life issues.

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

X-36 and tailless aircraft

Hi,

I see you reverted my edits to the McDonnell Douglas X-36 and tailless aircraft articles. The problem I have with NASA's description of the X-36 is that it does not meet the standard definition of a tailless aircraft, given in standard sources. In standard usage, tailless means there is no auxiliary horizontal plane, whether a tail plane or a "tail in the front" aka canard (aeronautics) foreplane. It does not imply the lack of a vertical fin, for example the Concorde is a tailless delta. Rather, the X-36 is more correctly described as finless. NASA's publicity usage appears to be just a casual abuse of a well-defined technical term. For example the B-2, which you mention in an edit comment, is tailless according to the standard definition as well. Hence its presence in the article. The X-36 has a canard foreplane and is therefore not a tailless aircraft in the usual sense. Since you restored it, it is now the only canard aircraft in the article and that is surely an unhappy situation. I would suggest that before we can accept the NASA usage as reliable and authoritative, we need an independent reliable source to confirm it. I am not aware of any such. Do you still have a problem with this understanding? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The actual name of the aircraft is "Tailless Fighter Agility Research Aircraft". You changed the name to "Fighter Agility Research Aircraft", which is not the program's name! Seriously? So now we can change actual program names if we think it's an incorrect definition? That's like the vandals who change Ministry of Defence to Ministry of Attack, because they think it's a more accurate name. Serious editors don't do that. Also, your explanation was unsourced OR - you'll have to add a reliable source that actually says that the X-36 is not tailless. As to the Tailless aircraft article, I've reverted myself, but tagged the definition for citation needed. I'm willing to admit I may be wrong to consider aircraft with canards as tailless, but it may also be an ENGVAR issue. If so, then both definitions need to be covered. - BilCat (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"Serious editors don't do that". Serious editors don't slag off their colleagues either. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Point taken. My apologies. I do think you are a serious editor, and I was surprised you would "correct" an existing name. But I didn't have to make my point that way. - BilCat (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I should have realised it was the X-36 programme name. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Your reversion of US American

Why not make a good faith effort to find out why this hatnote was put in place before you hastily revert. Not cool man, not cool at all. And I meant to put an edit summary of my reversion of your reversion, but I hit enter accidentally at the wrong time. I suspect we'll go through this process once more at least as a result. Vranak (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the article in the hatnote before reverting your edit. I saw nothing about US Americans other than a single mention in the girl's answer, and nothing else in the article is related to usage of the term. At this point you haven't even tried to make a case for why the hatnote should be there. What you need to now is to revert yourself, and use the article's talk page to build a consensus to support your edit. I'm not going to edit war with you, but I suppect someone else will revert you soon enough. If you revert them, I'll report you for edit warring, and you can suffer any consequences. - BilCat (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Boeing 314

This article has now been semi-protected at my request against editing by anonymous IP users for six months. Centpacrr (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I do appreciate it. I keep meaning to ask Jeff to take a look at the article, as he's a good copy editor, and may be able to make some compromise changes. - BilCat (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Your reversion of Air Jamaica

Please note the airline "AIR JAMAICA" is no longer in existence. The page should be either edited to reflect the former airline that existed prior to complete takeover by Caribbean Airlines. Any page search on Wikipedia reflects Caribbean Airlines as the only airline as well as actual visits to any of the airports flown by the airline. Additionally, the airjamaica.com website simply reverts to caribbean-airlines.com thus showing the non-existent form of the airline. There is no Air Jamaica website, the headquarters of the airline, Caribbean Airlines is also based in Piarco. As a frequent flyer, Air Jamaica exists in merely as a livery on one of the 22 aircraft of the Caribbean Airlines fleet.[1]Saltprune416 (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should edit the page to reflect the former airline as it existed before its sale to Caribbean Airlines, but that should probably be discussed on the article's talk page first. Putting.the Caribbean Airlines' logo on the page is just confusing. - BilCat (talk) 05:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Your reversion of McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II#Iran

Please do not revert repeatedly. I am still working on it. Many thanks. Farhoudk (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop adding the same photo, there are enough photos already. - BilCat (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for the revert. I hope it's okay, but I tend to leave content like that unless it's really, really nasty. Sometimes it is needed for sock evidence or other things. Plus, I try to put everything into the archives I can for the record. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem! Anyway, I thought it was nasty! - 07:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It was a bit nasty. :) I see others have warned her. Anyway, sometimes I feel that if they get a chance to vent, they are less likely to come back. Had I just reverted, it may have infuriated her, and she might have decided to become vengeful and be a nuissance. I will archive it soon, though. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi

I saw that you reverted user Eraseroftheevilshit here, and then some of his sock edits. His new account "Neverguesswhathappened continues to make contentious and incorrect edits, care to join me for a sock report? Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it the same person? The edits seem to be on different subjects. - BilCat (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

GAZ-24 was how I caught the link. The editor has also used several other accounts, all on Soviet era cars, trucks, and planes (Gratefulsight and Intrascanner are others that I've seen so far). Anyhow, if you could perhaps help keep an eye peeled that would be useful. Also, Neverguesswhathappened's first edit was at Ilyushin Il-76, where you originally encountered the evilshit character.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

On a side note: Guyana! Cool. Trying to go there this summer.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Neverguesswhathappened appears to be a sock of Eraseroftheevil. But RS-Fighter doesn't seem to be the same person. Enjoy your trip there! - BilCat (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

your reversion of MOWAG Piranha

Read the article - everything I've put in the infobox is in the article. I am looking at an authoritative source for what I'm putting in. Alanthehat (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Not the point. There are other infoboxes in the article for the variants, plus separate articles on the LAV III, LAV-25, Stryker, etc. Don't overwhelm the infobox with information that's covered elsewhere. - BilCat (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I am prepared to accept your opinion about the title line of the infobox, on reflection my edit was clumsy, by why revert the whole edit? That topmost box appears to describe the whole range. Some of the revert appears to me to be pure vandalism, for instance you have allowed '6x6' to remain, but it was '6x6' yet you have allowed '8x8' to retain it's link. Alanthehat (talk)

Aircraft Engine

Apologies, I thought I was blowing that guff away, not replacing it.TheLongTone (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)