Jump to content

User talk:BilCat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Anderson (talk | contribs) at 01:34, 18 December 2010 (→The). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to BilCat's user page

on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can vandalize! And that they do!

Your proposition may be good
But let's have one thing understood
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
And even when you've changed it
or condensed it
I'm against it!
--Groucho Marx in Horse Feathers [1]

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.

Military Historian of the Year - 2009

[Moved to user page]

I posting better discussion here (Delta ≠ 368)

Hello, BilCat. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kamov Ka-50

RE: Your "Removal of unneeded(?) note/detail". BilCat, who are you to pass such judgment!? In my, and opinion of many other Ka-50 enthusiasts, the note is/was very significant and as such is going back where it belongs! Furthermore, I would appreciate if you provide more info for your "edits", as per Wikipedia policy. Ltr,ftw (talk) 10:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your edit of 29 September 2010, FWIW, "rebels" in the Russian media are normally referred to as "bandits". So the editor was factually correct in his terminology, although politically incorrect in WP. It's also much more satisfying to read about actions against "bandits" than against "rebels", especially in the original language! Santamoly (talk) 06:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Santamoly: Bandits vs Rebels, Great patriotic war vs Eastern front... all these reminds me of old imperial Russia and Soviet styled propaganda machinery. FYI, Wikipedia (WP) operates along the guidelines of WP:NPOV, meaning we are politically neutral hence your argument/assumption that WP is politically incorrect is in itself fundamentally flawed. No offence to you but please take note, thank you and best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I was using expressions like Great patriotic war vs Eastern front! But thanks for spicing up the dialogue. I was just observing that the meaning of the text was changed for no apparent reason other than "political correctness". The term "bandits" is still a term used daily in the media[1], usually applied to common armed thieves and criminals. It's entirely possible that they were not rebels, just plain mafia-type bandits. No proof was offered that they were actually politicized "rebels", and not common bandits. Santamoly (talk) 06:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Santamoly, you said "'rebels' in the Russian media are normally referred to as 'bandits'" in your fisrt post, but in the second post you're claiming that "rebels" and "bandits" means something diffterent (policitl rebels vs. criminal/thieves. There is often no difference between reblas and bandits (meaning they are both), which is what your first post implied was the case with the Russian media. So which is it?? Is there any proof they were common bandits, not politicized "rebels"? The text in the Kamaov article does give us a clue: "Ka-50 used live weapons against a real enemy for the first time." Usually that's not a statement made of mere criminals or thievs! - BilCat (talk) 08:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'd have to interview the originating journalist to sort this one out. I simply commented on changing terms for political correctness alone. Russia is depressing enough without having to be PC towards legitimate targets. God bless all here! Santamoly (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Professor Storyteller

A section has been created on my talk page for us to continue the discussion we've agreed to relocate from the U.S. State discussion page. I look forward to seeing your thoughts there.Professor Storyteller (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martin 4-O-4 or Martin 404?

How about http://www.airlinehistorymuseum.com/martin.htm http://www.calclassic.com/martin.htm http://www.marylandaviationmuseum.org/history/martin_aircraft/18_airliners.html http://www.skippyscage.com/aviation/wy/sheridan/index.php and especially http://www.plane-crazy.net/links/404_spec.pdf

The Martin engineer I spoke with a few years back said Glenn Martin himself came up with the name 4-O-4, not 4O4, not 404, not 4-0-4. Most people and organizations ignored it, using the names interchangeably. Even the FAA did it, issuing type certificates for the 2-O-2 and the 404. Glenn Martin got especially mad when Convair came out with the 440, believing it was a deliberate attempt to make their plane look more advanced than his (440 is more than 404).

When Eddie Rickenbacker was President of Eastern he also insisted on 4-O-4, bot nobody listened to him. He also hated the name "Connie" when applied to Constellations.

My dad moved from Eastern to Southern in 1969. Almost 100% of the employees referred to the aircraft as the Martin 404, the exceptions being maintenance people and pilots that came over from Eastern. JScottJ (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is better discussed on the articles' talk pages. None of thoses soeurces are waht WP calls Reliable published sources. - BilCat (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pronunciation does not mean much. For example the Boeing 707 has been commonly pronounced 7-O-7, when the O really should be a zero. -fnlayson (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your help on the US State article. I had resigned myself to a month of futile discussion. What a pleasant surprise to return and find you had solved the problem! Student7 (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. "Forced a solution to come forth" might be a better description! - BilCat (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C130-J

Hello,

You may want to add your opinion on the subject of C130-J failed deals.

Best regards. Cochonfou (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attack vs gunship vs armed

Bill, just wanted to let you know that I regret how the conversation got somewhat heated. I have great respect for you, and let my emotions get ahead of me. Hopefully you'll see the merit in some of my points, or at least understand what I'm trying to convey. I hope we can work to improve the accuracy of these articles, and show an increased differentiation among the helicopter configurations. Best wishes. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 18:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and I can get a little emotional myself when discussing topics. My goal re: this topic is to get as many reliable sources presented so we can make the best decision based on them. We'll get it sorted out eventually. I think some of the info Ahunt presented on his page will help, but it still goes to my main point that the definitions nad usage overlap. Presenting the definitions as overlapping is probably the best way to go, and we can still have 3 articles dealing with the topic. - BilCat (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well I guess I still have issues with three articles, because I'm convinced one title is redundant. I don't believe in my heart that there are three kinds of offensively armed helicopters (sources aside) but maybe I'll come around. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 18:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "Gunship" article isn't about helicopters - it's about the use of the term "gunship", which has several different meanings. It's not meant to replace the other two articles, but it's just an explanation of the various definitions of "gunship". Sure it needs work to be consistent, but we have to start with definitions from reliable sources first. WP doesn't set the standrds, we just follow accepted documented usage, even if they conflict or overlap. - BilCat (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Okay. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 18:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Bill, thanks for policing up my signature on the task force talk page. I've been so out of practice, it's like I'm a noob all over again. --Born2flie (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why?? They're just redlinks. - BilCat (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be funny. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 03:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It'd only have been funny if you'd reverted onb Born's page! :P - BilCat (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You want me to revert something on Born's page? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 03:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless you want to irk his ire! :O) - BilCat (talk)
Don't worry, I'll tell him you said it was okay. ;) --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 03:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Sikorsky S-60

Hey Bill, made some subtle changes on your sandbox article, in my own inimitable style. As to a DYK, a good DYK might be the story of Igor Sikorsky and his engineering going out for a quick flight underneath the S-60, using the same principle as the sling-hoist for out-sized loads. The group of them were out in the open on improvised chairs, looking very silly. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see you removed the citations for the librarial impaired - tsk tisk! :) And if you have a cite for that anecdote, add the story in (briefly) to the article, and perhaps we can use it in the DYK. - BilCat (talk) 08:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like it would be a good hook indeed - I don't suppose there's a picture of Sikorsky's little jaunt to make it a lead hook? If not though, that sounds like the kind of "quirky" hook DYK loves for a "closing note". - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed
So, how may I help with the DYK? If it's needed, just let me know. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 06:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, if you have the time, can you take the lead on applying for DYK, and shepherding it though the process? I'll watch and learn.I just think the S-60 is unusual and not well known, and ought to have a shot at DYK, but my health's not really up to trying to learn what to do on my own, or try to push it through by myself. I've got some ideas on what to write for the DYK, but no real idea what they want, but I'll try to write something here in the next day or so. Btw, I don't think have any sources on the flying chair incident, so if we don't find one in the next few days, I'm not planning on including it. - BilCat (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, glad to help. I'll get it nommed in the morning. :) - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed

{{subst:NewDYKnom | article=Sikorsky S-60 | hook=... that before the flight test program of the '''[[Sikorsky S-60]]''' [[flying crane]] was completed, its successor was already on the drawing board? | status=new | author=BilCat | nominator=The Bushranger | image=Sikorsky S-60 crane helicopter 1959.jpg | rollover=The prototype Sikorsky S-60. |alttext=A large helicopter with a five-bladed main rotor and four-bladed tail rotor, and massive housings for the engines on either side, squats over a bus-like cabin strapped underneath its pod-and-boom fuselage..}}

- The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 23:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you VERY much! - BilCat (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! (Also replied to your question on my talk page). - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 05:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sikorsky S-60

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the betting...

...that Sun Way Flight 4412 gets taken to AfD? Mjroots (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If MMN is still unblocked, it's a sucker bet it's goes to AFD within 24 hours! - BilCat (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't even have an airline article to merge it to, at least not that I can find! - BilCat (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the airline is San Vai (see discussion at Aviation Herald page), but Sun Way will do for now. Is "Keep, just to annoy MMN" a valid rationale? Mjroots (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<<<<Stalker comments removed>>>> 17:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks like you've got a stalker, Bilcat! Mjroots (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another one?? Could that be construed as baiting, since I'm not "permitted" to respond to him per the terms of my unblock. - BilCat (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, but as you've not responded to him there's no need for any admin to take any action, is there? Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You never know, one of his admin buddies would probably contrue my mentioning of "MMN" as baiting on my part, and block me for a week! ;) Btw, he may just be stalking you, not me! - BilCat (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever it is he's "stalking", he shouldn't be doing it - just one more point for his eventual RFC/U. - BilCat (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sun Way Flight 4412 No comment... Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an awfully weak nom, in my opinion, almost a "stuff doesn't exist" argument. At this point, this "delete cabal" (for lack of a better term) seems to be nomming accidents on sight, just on "principle". I guess frivilous AFDs are no longer considered "frivilous", but the norm. Just a waste of time better spent elsewhere on WP, really. - BilCat (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the Qantas Flight 32 incident is apparently much more serious than Qantas admitted. Apparently, the aircraft was nearly lost, with only the presence of an extra two crew able to provide assistance saving the aircraft. A report is due out this week from the ATSB. Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's one of those incidents that, in hindsight, one will wonder why it was ever AFDed - and both of us were initial deletes! - BilCat (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. It's not that often I !vote "delete" at AfD, but it appeared to me that the incident wasn't quite notable enough to sustain an article based on the initial reporting. Subsequent reporting revealed that the incident was more serious than it appeared at first, hence my change of !vote. Mjroots (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, based on intial reporting - which wasn't the whole truth, apparently - it sure appeared to be a non-event. - BilCat (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Notable residents section

I was using "we" as a whole for the site; as far as I know, the consensus against notable resident sections has been in place for quite a long time, though I cannot point to the specific conversation. I know at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennessee, while wholesale removal of notable residents is not desired, it does seem to be the case that if someone is to be noted, any such mentions should provide evidence that the person strongly influenced that town. For a place like Nashville, this becomes increasingly difficult, compared to a notable person from a small town like Jellico (one of the examples provided in the WT:WPTN thread). I admit I was too brief in my statement in the edit summary, but I strongly disagree that either Cyrus or Kesha have strongly impacted Nashville as a whole. Yes, they are internationally popular, but that's a very different thing from the town inheriting notability *because* they are from there, which is how I interpret such sections as being meant for. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Notable people, such lists are indeed allowed to some degree, those prose is "preferred" - I don't recall ever having seen such a prose section, however. It also recomends having a "list of..." article for lengthier lists, which in this case is at List of people from Nashville, Tennessee. That's not quite the same thing as saying such lists aren't used at all. I realize yu didn't say much in the summary (which is a bad place for details anyway, theough the extra 50 characters option for summaires is useful for those of us (me!) who do often write long summaires! :) Also, the WPCITIES guidelien doesn;t limit the list to people who have only influenced the city, just "any famous or notable individuals that were born in, or have lived for a significant amount of time, in the city". I'm not arguing that the prevailing consensus you describe is wrong, jsut that you probably need to get it "codified" somewhere first, and/or have the existing guidelines modified. - BilCat (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

I didn't mean that you couldn't engage in legitimate discussion with MMN and I'm certainly not going to block you for having a sensible discussion in an AfD. Just... less of the m-f'ing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think you're right on those points. Anyway, he's clearly stalking me or MJR by comemnting on my talk page. I'm going to ANI to report it - I think anyone in their right mind would know that commenting on the talk page of a user who was blocked for "baiting" is a bad idea, but then Mick's definition of "bad idea" is quite different from that of the rest of us. :) Still, I don;t appreciate tha way he responded at the AFD - he well knows that I meant SNOW, and that "Sppedy Keep" is often used on AFDs in place of SNOW. Al he had to say was something like "SNOW is the term we usually use in AFDs". Anyway, I should have expected a WP:DICK to be a {{WP:DICK]]. - BilCat (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't know that SNOW was what you intended. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I find the use of various terms in AFDs confusing - I think SNOW was what I intedned! :) - BilCat (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's the vast array of notability guidelines that do my head in. How many do we need? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That too! I think some joker purposefully crafted them to be overlapping and contradictory just to watch the confusion at AFD when people use the same guideline to support opposite points! :) - BilCat (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, you must learn the ways of the force. If you feel as though you're being bothered at an Afd, merely ignore it & let the closing administrator of the Afd, decide if you opinon there, is valid. GoodDay (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think I'm in the mood for such prattle today? He's stlaking my talk pagem, for God's sake! - BilCat (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know you meant well. I'm just very frustrated right now. -
No prob. GoodDay (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC about MMN

BilCat, re your comments at ANI, if you want to assist in drafting the RFC about MMN, then it's at User:Mjroots/MMNRFC, where you are welcom to present evidence and raise any issues that you feel need to be raised. Keep the language as neutral as possible, and let the evidence presented speak for itself. No need to sign anything until the RFC goes live. Mjroots (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if that will be acceptable under the terms, but if it is, I'll be glad to help out. Thanks anyway, and for your comments about the AFD. I think I'd rather stay from the AFDs away for now! - BilCat (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RFCC explains about RFCs on users. Mjroots (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, Dave. :) - BilCat (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Groucho Marx

Ah hah, a fellow Groucho fan. "Say the secret woyd and win $100". GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the only form of Marx-ism I tolerate! :) - BilCat (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you administrator that you giving me warrming?

>>You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Constitution.

There are not reverts. They are editing. You want discuses them you are welcome. This you who reverts edits without arguments.

>>Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

This is you opinion of "disruption", I need not cooperate with anybody. The issue is science and true. You have no arguments so you choose to scare me. Anyway remove you note from my discussion page if you are not administrator.

>>In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.

Keep it for you. Edits are not reverts. I edit you reverts without arguments that is one point for you, and you will be first who reverts three times. Remember!

>>If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes.

Start discussion. this is your prerogative, I will respond. Until know you did not have arguments. Only one is that I disrupt of consensus - which I think you are the defender and you need not argue about facts.

>>Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors.

Consensus is not important. Important is science, true and facts. 99% can dislike the true but have to agree with facts. Wikipedia is not a forum to comfort vanity of majority. This is encyclopedia - scientific work.

>>If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Why not? I fight for true and I proofing the facts. This is you dream that you can comfort yourself by editing "new speech" mess.

>>Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.

You can do it yourself. I need not help with argue facts.

>>In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

If you are administrator do it, we will see what consequence you will pay. if you are not administrator stop lecture me, remove you notice from my discussion page and start to discuss.

--Cleaghyre (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Aérospatiale Gazelle

sigh... fine, I made those edits for several reasons which I wouldn't have been able to fit in the summary... but yeah I usually forget anyway, so oh well. As for the edits themselves, I really don't think the law enforcment users are necessary, realistically who knows how many of them are actually in police service not to mention the sources concerning them are somewhat unreliable, upon closer look. The article should stick to military users solely. Buttons (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaican Article: I'm Trying to Add the Citation, but you Keep Reverting While I'm Adding It

I'm trying to add the citation on Irish-Jamaican heritage, but you keep reverting 30 seconds after I edit.

Please show some courtesy and let me have some time to post the citation.

You should post an "add citation" banner because that gives the person time to add the citation-- rather than reverting 30 seconds after I try to add the citation in.

98.245.148.9 (talk) 05:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on my talk page...but here's a present!

The Arbiter has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Pieces of fried chicken promote WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of fried chicken by adding {{subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or gobble up this chicken the giver's talk page with {{subst:MunchChicken}}!!

Changes/shmanges to BAC TSR-2 and De Havilland Comet

Since another editor is going around changing the style of the reference areas, I changed only the two articles presently in GA reviews. Can you change them back just for the time being because I wanted to see what the reviewer would make of the change. Then after that, I will propose it to the Wiki Aviation Project Group for comment as an accepted system of referencing. FWiW, how you doin' ? 19:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, but can you provide the link the guidelines that state this is now the accepted method? To my knowledge, both styles are accepted and optional, and ought to be discussed before changing them. The non-header style seems better for WPAIR articles, as our TOS can be quite long. - BilCat (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wouldn't call it the accepted system but it was the system in use in 2006 when a Swedish editor introduced the system in order to categorize the elements of a reference source. Why I introduced the "tuck-in" method of hiding the notes, citations and bibliography listing under "references" came from a series of challenges by the diehards who insisted that the term "references" stood for all sorts of sources; I had seen it used as a list of citations, etc. Then the "other sources", "for additional reading" and other titles were also in play. I typically changed all the Wiki aviation articles I encountered, 6,000 now and counting, to a consistent style but I do agree that the fully laid out form works well for some articles while the other "embedded" listing works best with shorter articles. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hey...

Good to see you editing. Did not seem like you took much of a break there. Hope you are feeling OK. Keep up the good work. -fnlayson (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, bad case if Wiki-addiction! Anyway, it was mainly to remind me not to stay on so long as usual, but the last few days have been pretty much back to normal of my WP editing. My health still isn't good, but at least it's back to my "normal" for now. - BilCat (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No kicking this habit. :) Look the Bell 407 operators. -fnlayson (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow. Excuse me if I'm just a bit dense, as I'm still not getting much sleep. - BilCat (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought it was a bit interesting that Jamaica has 3 Bell 407s. No big deal though.. -fnlayson (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rawle D. Lewis

Hi. I've restored it to an earlier version which was deleted on a "prod" basis. Deb (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It still needs some work to establish notability though. Deb (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Downwash

Thanks for pointing that article out - what a mess! I just happened to have a ref - hope you like the new version! A little shorter but cited at least. - Ahunt (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much, much, much better! Thanks - that should save it if the Prod nom decides to take it to AFD. - BilCat (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad that helped. He can't AfD it now, it has reliable third party refs!

EUROPEAN AIR GROUP


Bill,

I edited an Article about the Eurpean Air Group (EAG) that was posted a while ago on Wikipedia by someone who does not work with this organisation. I work for this organisation and was tasked by my boss to edit a more ' in depth' and up-to-date article on the EAG. That is why I edited the previous article. It was 'blocked' by you because of suspicion that it was' apparent text dump from another site, uncited, likely to be copyrighted'. I assure you that this is not the case. All text and images is 'EAG-work' and published by me as appointed ' EAG Wiki-publisher' solely with the intention to enhance the ' brand awareness' for the EAG. For this reason I will now undo your 'blockage' because I think this will do just to the accuracy of the contents of this page and the public has the right to be optimaly informed about us. Keesbleijerveld (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE has sent you a Christmas cookie! May its sugary goodness fill you with warmth and love this holiday season. But don't eat too many!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:Wikipedia:CONTRIB/Holidays/General3}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks! Glad to see you're still around. - BilCat (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Laughing Man & Individual Eleven

Sorry about not adding a discussion, it's being discussed in the main article Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex where the novels are being discussed. Though it's not that big of a deal IMO, the article has been stubb for over 2 years now and looks like content forking. The only information it has that's new is the voice cast.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

anyways, if you wish to contribute to the discussion, please be free to do so.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I may stop by and have a look later. - BilCat (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The

If a subject has been discussed before, you should point to where. You can't just say Viggen shouldn't be translated correctly without giving any reasons why. John Anderson (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did give a reason - "the "the" is not translated into English for names". I'll be posting my the links to the other dicsusions, on the talk page, within the hour. - BilCat (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's no reason, that's an opinion or a claimed fact. It's based on lack of knowledge of the Swedish language. John Anderson (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's based on knowledge of the English language - we don't translate the article in names in cases such as this. - BilCat (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we do – if that's the correct way of translating it. A name doesn't normally have an article, but the names of Swedish fighter planes are in definite form and must therefor be translated with 'the' or you will not get a correct translation. It's not an English name for the plane, it's an explanation of what the Swedish name would mean in English, and therefor the name should be translated literaly. John Anderson (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6283PH20100309
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BilCat&oldid=402950984"