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.

Speedy deletion declined: User:BillCJ/UBX/My Aussie flag

Hello BilCat. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:BillCJ/UBX/My Aussie flag, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Sorry, we can only accept db-user requests from the same account. If you don't have access to BillCJ, use PROD or MFD. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, ignore that, I see account was CHU-d, should have checked that. Page deleted. JohnCD (talk) 12:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Logo editing

Hi Bilcat thank you for adding logo to Piaggio Aerospace [1], I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm currently facing some issues regarding logo copyright in the corresponding Italian site...I understood I cannot add the logo on commons because it is under fair use, neither add directly on it.wiki because I cannot upload file if I 've never added/modified pages...how can I use the same logo to add in the Italian corresponding page [2]? Pia Johns (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll look into it. - BilCat (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank You Bilcat. Looking forward to seeing the new logo in the corresponding Italian Wikipedia page....Pia Johns (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know any Italian, and so I'm not qualified to try to upload the logo. (I wish users not fluent in English would also realize their English illiteracy, and not edit WP articles, but that is apparently too much to ask! Yes, I MEAN YOU, MALAYSIA USER!!!!) You'll need ti find a user who is fluent in Italian to help you. Perhaps you could look at other compamy logos on Italian Wiki and see who uploaded them, and contact them for help. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll follow your kind advice. Merry Xmas n happy new year! Pia Johns (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Edits by User:200.118.198.249 on Time Warner Cable

Hi, Just wanted to let you know after you reverted the edits on Time Warner Cable by User:200.118.198.249 I added the 'uw-crystal' template to their talk page warning them about adding about unconfirmed or future events. Thanks. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Beechcraft Model 18

What gives? Not a neophyte, but look at Beechcraft Model 18, American Aviation and Village pump. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry

To you and yours FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bill. A merry Christmas to you and yours also. - 00:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Rollback

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hello,

After reviewing some of your contributions, I have found a number of instances where you've used rollback inappropriately. For example: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. There have also been recent instances where you have not been careful with the rollback tool: 11, 12 Rollback should only be used to remove problematic edits, such as vandalism. It should not be used in instances of good faith edits or where edit summaries should be used. Given this concern, I have removed the right from your account. When you feel that you understand its use and have demonstrated an appropriate understanding, you may re-request the user right at the request for permissions page. Best, Mike V • Talk 20:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you didn't speak to me about it today before removing the rollbacks. I understand there have been accidental rollbacks due the small edit screen, but I've always been clear about those, and I've reverted those almost immediately. As to the others, I haven't checked all of them just now, but in general, I only use rollbacks on what I feel is vandalism. Perhaps you thought some of those weren't vandalism, but you should have at least given me a chance to defend those edits first. In most cases, there may be issues with users that may not look like vandalism if you're not familiar with the user's edit history, especially IPs. In addition, I have always understood that rollbacks can be used as long as the edit summary is filled out, and this is much more convenient for multiple problematic edits when editing on the tablet. I would certainly like a second opinion on those edits, and a chance to at least clarify what the community feels are inappropriate edits. Then at least I'd know what edits the community feels are inappropriate to use rollbacks on. Please note that I did have the rollbacks disabled from my watchlist due to accidental rollbacks several months ago. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mike V: I'm also somewhat concerned by your action here, especially considering that Bill is a long-experienced editor who has had access to the rollback tool since 2008! Removing the tool from a prolific editor without any prior discussion in a non-emergency type situation clearly violates Wikipedia:Rollback#When to use rollback ("Administrators may revoke the rollback feature or issue a block in response to a persistent failure to explain reverts, regardless of the means used. However, they should allow the editor an opportunity to explain their use of rollback before taking any action" [emphasis added]). The condescending message you posted ("When you feel that you understand its use and have demonstrated an appropriate understanding") was ill-judged, especially considering that Bill is hardly a newbie to Wikipedia and its rules, or the rollback tool. While I agree that many of the examples you give aren't good uses of the tool (though none seems so outright awful as to justify removal of access to the tool without a discussion or warning), others are entirely fine: in [3] Bill removed what's obviously a copyright violation image, and in [4] he removed vandalism concerning a living person (at best a test edit which appeared to add a proviso to a mention of a living person). I am also concerned by the last two examples you give Mike as "instances where you have not been careful with the rollback tool" - the self-reverts from Bill you give to support this claim are exactly what WP:ROLLBACK#Accidental use of rollback asks editors to do in these circumstances, and actually indicate responsible use of the tool. I have lots of the articles Bill passes through watchlisted, and have seen him regularly use the rollback tool correctly to remove vandalism. Mike, I think that you should restore Bill's access to the tool, and if you do not I will start a thread at WP:AN to discuss this (I'd restore it myself, but don't fancy the appearance of wheel warring). Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. I didn't mind Mike's tone, as it seemed boilerplate to me, and that's OK. If there are edits that I consistently use rollbacks for that are inappropriate, I'll certainly modify my use regarding those. I'm not certain, but Indo think Mike may have spoke to me a few months ago about rollbacks, or some other admin did, so I was warned, if not today. Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Nick-D, These examples were only a sampling of the issues found and I only provided enough to illustrate the concern. I'm particularly disappointed by #9, which I believe an experienced user should know not to restore via rollback. I believe my removal of the permission is appropriate and in line with the rollback policy. I disagree with your assessment of the 2 links you've provided. If the image was uploaded with an improper license and removed as such, that should have been explained in an edit summary. The second diff does not appear to be obvious vandalism. While BilCat may be a longstanding contributor, the policy on when to use rollback is very clear. You're welcome to bring the issue to AN for review but I would strongly encourage you to review BilCat's past reverts first, as there are additional concerning uses of rollback. Mike V • Talk 23:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Uh, nine was vandalism on the part of the IP, as that isn't his user page, and that should have been obvious. I think I accidentally restored it anyway, given the content of the comment. You still have not explained why you couldn't speak to me today before removing the rollbacks. Was I really a danger to the project that had to be stopped immediately? As to the accidental rollbacks, I understand those shouldn't happen. If I felt they were occurring far to often, I'd have asked to have the privilege removed temporarily, as I did when the watchlist rollbacks were a problem. I will ask at Village Pump or somewhere if a confirmation can be added to rollbacks, as is used with the Thanks feature. (Actually, most of the accidental rollbacks have occurred while trying to press Yes when Thanking! How ironic.) - BilCat (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Nine was not vandalism by the IP. The IP was removing a personal attack from the user's page and your use of rollback restored it. I removed the user right because after looking through your edits, I felt that there was a systematic misunderstanding of how you were using the tool. I don't believe it was a mistake or two that could be corrected with minor guidance. To me, your response to #9 and the message you have posted on your talk page, "Please realize that, in many cases, unexplained edits are indistinguishable from vandalism!", shows there's some opportunity to learn further about Wikipedia's policies. (Many of our new users start out as IP editors and we should generally assume good faith with their contributions. Not all individuals are aware of how to use an edit summary and omitting one does not equate it to vandalism.) In addition, as the policy is written an admin is not required to issue a warning before removing the right. Clarification can be sought where the justification is not readily apparent, but as I mentioned before, there were too many instances of concern for this to be the case. I'll also note the rollback page states that "... editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed." The page notice for the permission request page also warns that "Misuse of the feature, even if unintentional or in good faith, may give cause for it to be removed." Mike V • Talk 00:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Mike, I think that you are misinterpreting the guideline: it states that admins "should" start a discussion before removing rollback rights. Obviously this isn't the same as "must", but it's a strong word and so seems to be the sensible pre-requisite in non-emergency situations such as this (especially considering a) how long Bill has had the tool for b) his many, many, correct uses of it c) his long and generally excellent history of editing and d) his responsiveness to feedback). It is concerning to me that you didn't even try to discuss this with Bill before removing the tool, as, if I read the above post correctly, you simply assumed that he would not respond to feedback. You have also not responded to my concern over your use of two examples of Bill correcting himself per the rollback guideline to justify your action (I can attest that Bill took actions to stop previous problems with rollback earlier this year as he said). I think that you acted hastily here, and I'd again strongly encourage you to restore access to the rollback tool, with this serving as a warning to Bill to take more care with it. Nick-D (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Mike, number nine is not in good faith, in my educated opinion, being familiar with the users - the IP has been feuding with the registered user for some time. Yes, the original edit appears to be a personal attacks, but she is actually responding to the talk page IP's comments elsewhere, IIRC. That is what I meant about your not being familiar with user's edit histories. The statement "Please realize that, in many cases, unexplained edits are indistinguishable from vandalism!" is meant only to encourage users to use edit summaries. However, I will make every effort not to use rollbacks for questionable edits.

Nick, if you still want to, please restore my rollback rights. I promise not to use rollbacks except in cases of obvious vandalism or non-productive edits, and I will promptly revert any accidental rollbacks, while trying to make sure they don't occur in the fisrt place. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

BilCat - Can you provide diffs that explain the context of the IP removing the personal attack? I'm still not sure why you added it back.

Nick-D: In regards to the two corrections, to me it shows there's a possibility that he's too hasty with the rollback tool. It's only supporting evidence. (Though I did find a third instance not too long ago.)

I've reviewed a number of the edits and there were many instances where rollback should not have been used. For example: 13, 14, 15, 16,17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41

As I mentioned before, if it were a couple of edits I would have discussed it with him. However, there are a number of concerning edits in just this month that a warning is insufficient. It shows a strong misunderstanding of the tool. I'd appreciate if BilCat would comment on each of the above edits. Could you provide insight as to why you used the rollback tool instead of providing an edit summary? How do you feel the above edits meet the rollback guidelines? Please note that as Nick-D stated, he won't be able to restore your rollback rights without the appearance of a wheel war. With that said, either of you are welcome to bring my actions to AN for review. Mike V • Talk 03:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Mike, I'm concerned that you're now asking Bill to justify himself in detail after the event - you should have had this discussion before removing the tools. More importantly, there is also an onus on you to explain how the use of the tools in each of these instances appeared to be improper - otherwise you're setting yourself up as judge and jury rather than attempting to justify and explain your action. While I agree that some of the examples you give which I've looked at aren't good uses of rollback, others are actually excellent uses of the tool. For instance:

• [5] was reverting blatant vandalism (removing a mistaken template which lead to a statement that "million years ago" was an operator of this helicopter! - if the IP's intention was to list Malaysia this was also blatant vandalism as Malaysia has never operated the type)
• [6] was the removal of blatant vandalism concerning a BLP (misconstruing the subject's statement about how she sees her national background which was accurately referenced to one of her Twitter posts)
• [7] involved reverting an edit which considerably changed the data in the article with no explanation (a common vandal fiddle to articles on weapons).
• [8] was reverting massive changes to cited figures on the strength of the Russian military, which is also a common form of vandalism to articles on these topics (almost always to exaggerate the size of the military, as was the case here)
• Another example you give [9] was followed immediately by Bill self-reverting himself with an apology [10] per the rollback guideline.

Can you please explain why you considered Bill's actions in these and the other instances to be improper? (especially concerning the BLP). This reinforces my view that you acted hastily, and again I ask you to restore Bill's access to rollback. Nick-D (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I consider the instances above to be a misuse of rollback because it does not meet the criteria of when it should be used. The guideline supports that rollback should only be used to "revert obvious vandalism where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear". This is not the case with the vast majority of diffs I have supplied. For instance, with the BLP article BilCat should have instead used the undo button and provided an edit summary to explain that the information was sourced. (In fact, this should have occurred with the examples you've provided above as well and the explanations be put in as edit summaries.) I still stand by my belief that there was enough misuse of the tool to warrant removal. I'm willing to provide diffs from additional months if you remain unconvinced. Saying that I'm playing jury and judge is not correct, as I've stated twice before that you and Bilcat are welcome to bring this to review at AN. I've asked the questions of BilCat because I'd like to hear from him personally about his understanding of the tool and to gain insight on why he used rollback in such a fashion. Mike V • Talk 17:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Mike, you've long worn out your welcome. I'm not submitting to your one-man inquisition any longer. Please leave my talk page, and go find some users who are actually doing damge to encyclopedic content. Any future posts will be removed, and if you continue to harass me, I will take appropriate action. Good bye. - BilCat (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opps sorry About that.

Just test about the Tomcat and Aardvark.Bilcat,Can you update the List of Aircraft Malaysian armed forces and Can you Unprotected The Malaysian Aircraft please. 124.13.234.53 (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)