Jump to content

User talk:BilCat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 183.89.118.75 (talk) at 20:33, 24 October 2013 (→Georgia: please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Georgia). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SEMI-SEMI-RETIRED

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



Robinson R44

Hello. Your edit summary says that you removed a table, but actually that's not all you reverted. Also, if you have an issue with a table in the article, then YOU too could take that to the talk page... Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Except that's not how WP:BRD works. You boldly added the table, he reverted it, now the next step is for you to discuss why the table should be included, not to re-add the table and then discuss why it should be removed. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks BR. - BilCat (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter Rotor & Helicopter Controls

Hi BilCat, thank you for the message regarding the external links. You tagged the links as spam. I inserted the links because they covered the topic with an overview, photos, in-depth video presentation and more links. The website itself was public, non-profit education website specifically aimed at educating the public on the subject of helicopters. Perhaps you could go into a bit more detail of why you thought the links were spam? J 9/29/13 JB77UK

Because it appeared to be a violation of the Wikipedia:Spam guideline, particularly the section reading "It has text at this video page that would lead readers to a specific commercial site. For example, "book available at xyzBooks dot net"." I recommend that you read the entire page, particularly the section on How not to be a spammer. In addition, if you are Jay Bunning, as your username implies, then I highly suggest that you read the essay at User:Durova/The dark side, which warns of some dangers involved in self-promotion that you or your website might not have considered.
Finally, I heartily suggest that you remove the links you've added immediately as a gesture of good faith. Then, once you have thoroughly reviewed the pages as I've suggested, you still believe that the links are useful, especially if you're associated with the website in any way, you can seek opinions from others about whether or not the links are useful to WP readers. Since you've posted links to more than one article, the best place to seek such advice would probably be the Aircraft Project talk page. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK fair enough, thank you. JB — Preceding unsigned comment added by JB77UK (talk • contribs) 17:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rollbacker

I have removed your "rollbacker" rights as requested with the summary "user request due to platform issues - no prejudice against re-assignment". I would ask any admin to restore the right on request by the user, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. - BilCat (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Aircraft carrier

Thanks for your message on my talk, User_talk:Techhead7890. However, as far as I have seen Talk:Aircraft_carrier mostly contains a debate over classification and definition, as I believe you and Nick Thorne note above, and I cannot find any formalised project or proposals to restructure the page as a whole. I don't feel that my edits are of a similar nature to this debate; in my opinion they are of an general nature to carriers and apart from the "Structure" section, consisted mainly of copyediting and shuffling paragraphs from summaries to related pages. I also acknowledge that this page has been in some quite dire need of more general information - previous editors who have attempted to work on the page since its GA delisting have noted this as well. In any case, although I will stop editing for the meantime, I am unable to establish the contradiction my edits and the talk, and if you could clarify this for me, I would be grateful. Thanks, Techhead7890 (talk) 07:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably also note that I have reverted your revert to the body sections; I have instead replaced it with a version only reverting the introduction as per Steelpillow's version several days ago. I felt that this was the best immediate compromise or refinement as per Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary, and I trust this is not unhelpful or contrary to reaching a settlement on the way to proceed with the article. As noted above, if you feel that the Structure section is unhelpful at the current time, please feel free to remove it as well. Techhead7890 (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright - as I've noted, I am not planning to work further on the article, so you may continue your discussion as planned without interference. I however don't see the formal planning or schedule of such work, or even a notice that it is undergoing revision on the talk due to its disorganised nature - at the very least, a heading notice would be nice. As I just stated, I do not plan to further work on the article and I do not care much if they are reverted or reworked during your revisal.
Seeing as though you are interested in discussion, to get some closure on this, if you could please explain more specifically which of these edits (and which of these are "structural changes") are most controversial: the edits I made to the article were over a variety of sections and areas.
Finally, as per the second message, I trust that the article in its intermediary form is not drastically changing to your restructuring - could you confirm this for me? Thanks, Techhead7890 (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As interesting as the subject is, there are a number of other pages that I am interested in; and to be honest my diplomacy, debate and rhetoric is not what I'm interested in practising on Wikipedia! As for the discussion itself - although I have made edits, as I've stated these are generalised edits and not reflective of any plan or indeed, tailored vision of the page. I also find it relatively hard to find exactly what is the topic-at-debate or what exactly is contentious, and so find it hard to comment further. That all being said I do wish you the best luck in attempting to establish a forward consensus, I know Wikipedia isn't always the nicest of debategrounds out there! Techhead7890 (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Conversation begin continued elsewhere ...

on WikiProject Airlines thread here: Need true definitive definition of an airline hub

Thank you. --71.135.163.123 (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black Cat (B-24)

Hi Bill, I moved the article to fit in with the vast majority of named aircraft articles (that I have come across), which use the name in italics, followed by the aircraft type in parentheses. I know there is no laid down strict policy, but if there is a majority of similar articles named this way, does that not count as concensus?--Petebutt (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of named aircraft articles don't use a disambiguator at all, as it's not needed. In Category:Individual aircraft, 16 articles with disambiguators use aircraft, airship, or helicopter, etc, while 4 use the type. In Category:Individual aircraft of World War II, 9 articles with disambiguators use aircraft, airship, or helicopter, etc, while 14 use the type. (I've not included Black Cat in the totals here.) That's 25 using aircraft, etc, and 18 using the type. Not a vast majority either way, but using type is in the minority. It does appear we need to address the issue to get a clear consensus one way or another. I'll start a discussion (or you can start it if you beat me to it!) at WT:AIR/NC, with notices about the discussion at WT:AIR and WT:AVIATION. - BilCat (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom for FAC

Hi BilCat, since you have contributed extensively to AV-8B, are you willing to be co-nom for its upcoming FAC? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer, but FACs are beyond my area of expertise on WP. Good luck in your effort to improve the article to FAC status. - BilCat (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia

I have raised this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Georgia. 183.89.118.75 (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BilCat&oldid=578599184"